Site designed and created by Razvan Paraianu.

© Created in January 2001, Last revised: January 3, 2004

CHAPTER IX

The Ausgleich and the Nationalities

"Every national movement is nothing else but a struggle for or against historic right." — Eötvös.

THE defeat of Königgrätz transformed the whole political situation in Central Europe. The dream of Austrian hegemony in Germany was rudely dispelled, and with it the unnatural occupation of Northern Italy came also to an end. The energies which had hitherto found their vent on the nor­thern and southern frontiers were thus of necessity directed towards the East, and Bismarck was merely voicing a very widespread idea when he recommended the transference of the seat of government from Vienna to Budapest. Sentiment and geography prevailed over diplomatic considerations; but while Vienna remained the residence of the court, Buda­pest acquired from the first a dominant influence in foreign politics which it was to retain for well-nigh forty years.

On July 19, 1866, Francis Deák was summoned to an audi­ence with his sovereign, and made his memorable reply, "Hungary asks no more after Königgrätz than she asked before it." The Magyar statesman acted with a generosity which was not the less real because it revealed a clear grasp of the situation, and his answer completed the personal con­quest of the monarch. But of course, though Hungary's demands were not raised, they had been converted by force of circumstances from a maximum to a minimum programme,[1] since the prospect of their attainment was now so immeasurably greater.

The appointment of Baron Beust, the former Premier of Saxony, to the Austrian Foreign Office marked a fresh stage in the negotiations. Enmity to Prussia had long been the ruling motive in Beust's career, and in accepting office in Austria! he was to a great extent prompted by sentiments of revenge, in which the affronts offered by Bismarck to his personal vanity played no small part. While encouraging Austria not to recognize her defeat in Germany as final, he regarded the Magyars as the most valuable asset in the coming struggle, and was ready to purchase their aid by the most far-reaching and even reckless concessions. Theoretically, Deák's position was already impregnable; but until the advent of Beust there was still grave doubt as to whether it would ever be converted from theory into practice. The Saxon's vanity completed what the lack of political talents among the Slavs had begun; Deák the lawyer and Andrássy the diplomat combined between them all those qualities which were needed for so delicate a task, and owed to superior political talents their triumph over the statesmen of Austria. The winter was spent in further deliberations, but the game was already won; and on February 18, 1867, the restoration of the constitution was publicly announced in Parliament, and a responsible Ministry formed under the premiership of Andrássy. The former lieutenant of Louis Kossuth thus became the instrument of Francis Deák's triumph. A detailed discussion of the Ausgleich lies wholly beyond the scope of the present volume, but a few general observations may not be out of place. The settlement of 1867 is in theory no new departure, but merely a reaffirmation of ancient rights and privileges — a fresh stage in the historic evolution of the Hungarian constitution. In practice, however, it proved to be the opening of a new era for Hungary. Similar rights had repeatedly been vindicated by earlier Diets, but never before had the House of Habsburg produced a ruler who observed with the same scrupulous loyalty as Francis Joseph the obliga­tions of his coronation oath. The Ausgleich reasserts the ancient independence of Hungary, in accordance with the Prag­matic Sanction and the laws of Leopold II; but it is careful not to interpret this independence in the sense of a mere dynastic link, as desired by Louis Kossuth. While securing to Hungary absolute control of her internal affairs such as she had not enjoyed since the fatal defeat of Mohács, it at the same time assured to the Habsburgs their most vital need — unity in foreign policy — and left undivided the army in whose hands the defence of that policy rested. Dualism did not conquer solely by reason of its intrinsic merits as a political organism, nor even of its historic claims and traditions, but also in virtue of the favourable constellation in Europe. Though a genuine historic evolution, it owed much to the political talent of individual Hungarian statesmen, and to the sheer incapacity by which the Slavs of Austria wasted a unique opportunity. Deák, who had never lived outside Hungary, and showed little grasp of the foreign situation, was unsur­passed as an exponent of constitutional practice; but Andrássy, who in his years of exile had become conversant with the problems of European diplomacy, supplied the very qualities which were lacking to the elder statesman.

But while it is true to describe the Ausgleich as the logical outcome of the Pragmatic Sanction, subsequent events have none the less shown it to rest upon a far more cynical basis than that of historic evolution. The real motive force which underlies the Dual System is a league between the two strongest races, the Germans and the Magyars, who divided the Monarchy between them, and by the grant of autonomy to the two next strongest races, the Poles and the Croats, made them their accomplices in holding down the remaining eight. This state of affairs could only last so long as the position of these four races remained unassailed; and the fall of the German hege­mony in Austria, now an accomplished fact since the collapse of German Liberalism and the introduction of Universal Suffrage must sooner or later prove fatal to the Magyar hegemony in Hungary. To-day the Magyars are ringed round by hostile races, whom they have done everything in their power to incense and instigate against them.

The conclusion of the Ausgleich was followed by a great outburst of legislative activity, rendered necessary by the stagnation of the past nineteen years. The whole system of taxation was re-organized (Laws 16, 19-26, 34, 35). An attempt was made to cope with the evils of usury (31). The chambers of commerce were organized under the control of the Minister of Agriculture (6). The compensation due f or the abolition of feudal rights was subjected to definite regula­tions (33). Considerable sums were voted for the erection of railways in various parts of the country, notably to connect Hungary with the Balkans (12, 13, 37, 45, 51). The law regarding expropriation was defined more closely (55). A Civil Code of procedure was promulgated (54). The national .defence, militia and reserve were brought into touch with modern requirements (40-42). The various recognized Churches were placed on a footing of complete equality: the separation of the Greek Oriental Church into two auto­nomous Serb and Roumanian Churches, and the creation of a Greek Catholic Archbishopric, received the formal sanction of Parliament (9 and 39); liberty was assured to the individual to change his faith (53) and questions of divorce were relegated to the Church courts (48). The State assumed for the first time the task of providing elementary education for its citizens, and laid down compulsory school attendance, with the mother tongue as the basis of primary instruction (38).[2]

In addition to all these measures, three laws were passed, whose paramount importance for the racial future of the coun­try justify us in treating them in greater detail. These were the Croatian Ausgleich, the Transylvanian Union and the Law of Nationalities.

(1) The compromise of 1868 with Croatia is not a mere law of Hungary, but a treaty between two states, repre­sented by the Parliaments of Budapest and Agram[3]; and this treaty asserts in the most explicit terms that no agreement between the two countries can be legally valid unless it obtains the sanction of the Croatian Diet. Even in 1868 a favour­able majority could not have been secured in Agram, but for the highly questionable methods adopted by the Ban, Baron Levin Rauch; rightly or wrongly, the feeling of the country was strongly opposed to the Ausgleich and inclined to hold out for a more complete form of self-government. The finan­cial conditions of the country, which had been regulated in a manner equally distasteful to Hungary and to Croatia, made resistance difficult, if not impossible, for many years; and the crisis of 1883 was followed by a long period of stagnation, thanks to the skill and tact with which the new Ban, Count Khuen-Hedérváry, concealed other less amiable though equally effective qualities. But electoral corruption and an absurdly narrow franchise[4] never could obscure the fact that an overwhelming majority of the Croatian population resented their country's dependence upon Budapest, and applied to their relations with Hungary the very doctrines which the Kossuthists of Hungary employed in their struggle against Austria.

The Diet of Agram nominally represents the triune kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia, but the latter, though in theory subject to the crown of St. Stephen, still forms an integral part of Austria. Croatia enjoys complete autonomy in all matters of administration, justice, religion and education (§ 48), and Croatian is everywhere the language of the legis­lature and executive (§ 56). The head of the local government is the Ban or Governor, who is appointed by the King on the proposal of the Hungarian Premier (§ 51) and sits by reason of his office in the Hungarian Chamber of Magnates. But while the Ban is responsible to the Diet of Agram (§50), the Croatian Minister in the Hungarian Cabinet, who acts as the channel of communication between the Ban and his sovereign, is responsible not to Agram, but to the joint parliament in Budapest.

Agram sends forty delegates to the central Parliament, which thus becomes a joint Hungaro-Croatian legislative body, whenever questions affecting the whole country are under dis­cussion; on these occasions the Croatian national flag is flown side by side with the flag of Hungary upon the Parliament buildings, and the Croatians enjoy the right to use their own language in the debates, instead of Magyar.

In section 59 of the Act, Croatia is recognized as " a political nation possessing a special territory of its own," and again in section 29 of the Law of Nationalities as " a separate nation from a political point of view." Thus Croatia is to be regarded as a sovereign state,[5] which has freely made over one of its departments, namely foreign affairs, to the central authority in Budapest; with the result that only the central parlia­ment can legally restore this sphere of influence to those who renounced it.

The weakest points of the Croatian Ausgleich are the finan­cial relations of the two countries, which have often been the subject of mutual recriminations, and the position of the Ban, who is regarded by the Magyars as subordinate to the Hungar­ian Premier, while the Croats virtually claim for him the status of an autonomous Premier of Croatia. The action of Coloman Tisza in despatching a Royal Commissioner to Agram in 1883 raised this question in its acutest form, and the folly of the Coalition Government in enforcing an illegal linguistic pro­vision upon Croatia in the summer of 1907, has reopened the old wound and led to the introduction of an absolutist régime in Croatia.[6]

(2) The geographical position of Croatia and the homogeneity of her population had stood her in good stead at the critical period of the Ausgleich. Magyar statesmen saw clearly the impossibility of Magyarizing the country, and anxiety regarding Hungary's access to the sea would have prompted them to come to terms, even if Deák had not been genuinely desirous of an honourable settlement. The situation in Transylvania was quite different. Here the task of assimilation, though diffi­cult, was not wholly impossible; for when the union with Hungary was once accomplished, the 600,000 Magyars and Szekels, instead of being a weak minority in the face of 1,200,000 Roumanians and 200,000 Saxons, combined with their six million kinsmen of the central plains, and thus formed part of a strong and compact Magyar majority. The great change wrought in the position of the Transylvanian Magyars not unnaturally betrayed them into over-confidence and arrogance, and for the next generation a policy of aggressive Magyari­zation w as a opted towards the other races.

The union of Transylvania with Hungary was hurriedly voted on May 29, 1848, under the influence of mob-terrorism. In contrast to all previous occasions on which the question of union had been brought forward,[7] the proposals were not submitted to the local jurisdictions, but were discussed and adopted in a single sitting. Indeed so precipitate had been the action of the Magyars that the Governor, Count Teleki, had summoned the Diet on his own responsibility, without awaiting the sanction of the sovereign; and the Act of Union was after­wards submitted to Ferdinand at Innsbruck by the new Hun­garian Premier, not by the proper Transylvanian authorities. The constitution of Transylvania rested on the solemnly guaranteed equality of "the three Nations " — the Magyar county assemblies, the Székel and Saxon Sees (Stühle) and Districts each sending delegates to the Diet in Klausenburg (Kolozsvár) with definite instructions which they might not legally exceed. The Saxon members on this occasion, intimidated by the cries of " Union or Death " which resounded beneath their windows, infringed their clear instructions in voting the union; and this circumstance would of itself throw doubt upon the legality of the Act. But even the most serious technical or legal objections are far outweighed by the moral objection supplied by the glaring anachronisms and inequalities of the Transylvanian franchise. The Roumanians, though they formed the great majority of the population, had been from time immemorial on an inferior footing to the three " privileged nations," and indeed only three Roumanians sat in the Diet of 1848. As the Saxons were only represented by twenty-two members, the Magyars commanded a clear majority among the ninety elected delegates, and this majority became overwhelming when reinforced by the votes of the i regalist members, the great mass of whom were Magyar nobles j and officials. Hence the passage of the Act of Union through such a House was a foregone conclusion.

The outbreaks of the Revolution prevented the Act of Union from being carried into effect, and the loyal support given to the Imperial cause by Saxons and Roumanians alike, served to emphasize the intense unpopularity of the union with all save the Magyar minority. One of the most fatal blunders of Alexander Bach was his ingratitude towards the non­Magyars of Transylvania, who, according to a happy Magyar phrase, received as a reward the same treatment which had been meted out to Hungary as punishment. Schmerling adopted a more tactful policy towards the principality; but he too infringed the constitution by holding the elections to the new Diet of 1863 under a franchise which had never re­ceived constitutional sanction. The various races of Tran­sylvania were for the first time equitably represented in the Diet; but the Magyar element refused to admit the justice of this change, and their abstention deprived subsequent legislation of its value. The law of August, 1863, recognizing the equality of the Magyar, German and Roumanian lan­guages, was worthy of the best traditions of Transylvania, which had earned a deservedly high reputation for its tolerance at a period when most other nations were striving to enforce their opinions by the sword. But tolerance and logic were of no avail against the Magyars, whose dreams of racial hege­mony the enforcement of such a law would have effectually destroyed. After the fall of Schmerling in 1865, the elections to the new Diet were entrusted to the Magyar or Unionist party, and the legislation of 1863 soon became a mere historic memory. The population of Transylvania amounted in 1865 to close upon two millions,[8] of whom the Magyars formed only 29 per cent., the Germans 12 per cent., and the Roumanians 59 per cent. Yet out of the 106 elected delegates in the new Diet, 61 (that is, 57 per cent., or almost double the proper allowance) were Magyars; while out of the 190 " regalists " 132 were Magyars. Thus the Magyars, despite their crushing numerical minority, commanded a majority of 90 votes over the united forces of the Saxons and Roumanians. The old elec­toral law of 1791 had been rendered obsolete and even un­workable by the abolition of noble privileges in 1848, and therefore the Government, in order to admit non-nobles to the poll, was obliged to modify the franchise by arbitrary decree, thus adopting the same illegal attitude as Schmerling in 1863. The sole difference was that while Schmerling tried to make the franchise correspond fairly accurately with the racial divisions of the country, his successors readjusted it in such a way as to favour the Magyar element. Thus every noble voted as such, but only those non-nobles enjoyed the franchise who paid at least eight florins in direct taxes — a qualification which was aimed at the poverty of the Roumanians. The dis­sentient Roumanian members were amply justified in assert­ing that " a Diet composed upon such a basis lacks the neces­sary moral force to ensure permanent validity to its decisions."[9] The attitude of the assembly was a foregone conclusion; the validity of the Act of Union was reaffirmed, and the royal rescript[10] urging a revision of that law, was completely ignored.

On December 25, 1865, the sovereign, in summoning Parlia­ment at Budapest and sanctioning the attendance of the Transylvanian deputies at it, expressly declared the union of the two countries to be " dependent upon due consideration being paid to the special interests of the principality upon the observance of the legally recognized claims of the various nationalities and confessions, and upon the proper regulation of the administrative questions of the country."[11]

The first sign of the coming storm was the decision of Parlia­ment in March, 1867, that until the Transylvanian situation had been regulated in accordance with the law of 1848,[12] "the Ministry is empowered to carry out the necessary measures with regard to the government, administration and justice in Transylvania, on its own responsibility and according to its own views." On the strength of this, Conrad Schmidt, the Saxon Count, was promptly forbidden to summon the Saxon University,[13] and on February 3, 1868, was relieved of office, though he had been appointed for life, and appointed not by the Government but by the University. The petitions of the University and of the councils of Hermannstadt and Schäss­burg were rejected on the ground that " the Ministry had been empowered " to act. A subsequent law deprived the Saxons of the historic right of electing their Count, and vested the appointment in the Crown, under the advice of the Hungarian Ministry (XLIII. §9).

In December, 1868, the Hungarian Parliament passed a law professing to regulate the details of the Union (XLIII. 1868). By it the special privileges of the various nationalities were abolished, and the equality of all citizens was proclaimed, irrespective of race or religion (§ 1). This clause, at first sight so liberal, contains the germs of racial tyranny. The ancient constitution of the principality was based on the equality of the three " historic nations " (the Magyars, Saxons and Szekels) and of the four recognized creeds (Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran and Unitarian); the significant omission of the Roumanians had at length been remedied by the law of 1863, which corrected historic tradition in the light of modern facts, and placed the three nationalities of Transylvania on an equal legal footing. The new law undermined the privileged position of the Saxons, which alone had saved their scanty numbers from extinction, and relegated the Roumanian majority to a kind of legal limbo, since it neither reduced them to their former status as serfs nor acknowledged their newly acquired rights. The Magyars were the only race to profit by the change, for they were now able to combine with their kinsmen of Hungary proper, and acquired a steadily increasing influence upon local administration, and before many years had elapsed, an exclusive control of the judicature.

The office of Governor, with all those dependent on it, was abolished (§ 7); the administrative powers of the Hungarian Cabinet were extended to Transylvania (§ 6), and the legislature was merged in the central Parliament of Budapest. Tran­sylvania was henceforth to be represented by seventy-five deputies in Parliament (§4), and the foremost officials of its counties and districts, including the Saxon Count, were assigned seats in the Chamber of Magnates (§5).

Perhaps the most remarkable provisions of this law, in view of subsequent events, are those referring to Saxon autonomy. The rights and privileges of the Saxon University, as enjoyed in previous centuries, were (with the single exception of its judicial functions[14]) solemnly guaranteed (§11). The Ministry was instructed to introduce a further law guaranteeing the rights of self-government enjoyed by the various Sees (sedes) and Districts of " the King's Land " (Königsboden: fundus regius) having previously consulted them regarding the details.[15] Till the introduction of this law, the Government was em­powered to take provisional action in matters concerning the Saxon territory.

When county government was reorganized in 1870 (Act XLIL), reference was again made (§ 88) to the special law which was to be devoted to the regulation of Saxon affairs, yet year after year was allowed to pass, and no such law was ever brought before Parliament. Meanwhile the Minister of the Interior, exercising his provisional powers, aimed repeated blows at the autonomy which he was solemnly pledged to respect. As early as January 24, 1869, he issued a decree annexing sixteen Roumanian communes to the See of Her­mannstadt, and ten Magyar and Roumanian communes to the See of Kronstadt. A serious inroad was thus made upon the German character of the two most important Saxon districts, and aliens acquired an influence over the adminis­tration and disposition of Saxon national property. In March of the same year a further decree imposed fresh regulations for the election of the representative bodies and of the local officials; the selection of candidates for these posts was placed in the hands of the Saxon Count (just as the candidature of county officials in the hands of the High Sheriffs) and proofs of legal training were dispensed with !

In 1871 the new law regulating the communes was applied to the Saxons also, though the Act of Union had expressly left in force the Transylvanian law of 1791 (XIII.) which secured the Saxon University in its control of communal affairs. The Magyar language was introduced into the Saxon administration (in virtue of XLIV., 1868), which had hitherto been conducted in German only, and became the official language in courts of first instance (in defiance of the same law, XLIV., 7, 8, 9; and 1869 IV., 6). At length in April, 1876, a law was introduced by Tisza's Ministry, not carrying out the pledge of the Act of Union, but directly violating it (XII., 1876) ! All existing distinctions in the matter of administration were abolished (§ 1). The ancient office of Saxon Count was annulled, and the honorary title was assigned to the High Sheriff of the county of Hermannstadt (§2). The sphere of influence of the Saxon University is henceforth restricted to control over its property and the application of its income (§ 3); but even then, its expenditure is strictly limited to educational objects (§4) — surely a clear infringe­ment of the rights of property. The general assembly[16] of the University becomes the executive authority for these purposes, subject to the Government's right of inspection (§7). Yet the validity of its decisions is made dependent upon Ministerial sanction, and this sanction has actually been given to resolutions which were passed by a minority of two members![17] Moreover the president of the assembly, who as High Sheriff is a nominee of the Government, has the right to terminate the sitting of the assembly, if " in his opinion" it has exceeded its sphere of action (§14), and if the meeting prove refractory, to prorogue the debate for a fortnight.

This iniquitous law was followed by a redistribution of .the counties, especially in Transylvania (1876, XXXIII.). The natural course to pursue would have been to make the county boundaries so far as possible coincide with ethno­graphical divisions; but instead of this, an attempt was made to play off Saxon and Roumanian against each other, and to place them at a strategical disadvantage, in the hope of securing for the Magyar minority the control of most of the county assemblies. On December 19, 1873, the Saxon Univer­sity had sent a memorial to the Premier, voicing its objections to the proposed redistribution. On January 27, 1874, a reply was received from the Minister of the Interior, severely reprimanding the University for the contents of this memorial, and on the ground of a rescript from the unconstitutional period, denying its right to discuss public affairs and making its president responsible for the cessation of such complaints. Thus arbitrarily did a constitutional Government withhold the right of petition and of free speech from the Saxons in a matter which concerned their most vital interests.[18] By a refinement of cruelty, the new law was treated in Parliament as a completion of the Act of Union, which had solemnly guaranteed the rights of the Saxon territory. Fine phrases about mediaeval anachronisms were employed to conceal the outrage thus offered to law and morality; but occasionally the veil was drawn aside. Baron Gabriel Kemény declared that the Saxons had forfeited their rights by sending deputies to the Reichsrath in the Schmerling era, while Coloman Tisza argued that parliamentary power stands higher than any rights.[19]

Saxon autonomy was now at an end, and the Hungarian Parliament had perjured itself in the eyes of the world. The small numbers of the Saxons made them an easy prey, and although their wealth, culture and sturdy independence have delayed the process of decay, they have been fighting a losing battle for the past generation, and there is little or no prospect of their ever recovering the rights of which they were so perfidiously robbed.[20] It has been reserved for the despised Roumanians to check the victorious advance of the Magyars and to reassert the claims of racial equality in a country where their ancestors so long occupied the position of serfs. The great mass of the Roumanian population has never become reconciled to the absorption of Transylvania in Hungary, and even those who are least disposed to look to Bucarest would welcome a revision of some of the more objectionable features of the Act of Union.

(3) The Magyars had adopted a graduated scale in their treat­ment of the other races. Croatia, as the most formidable and the most favourably situated, received a measure of autonomy which, if considered from the standpoint of the Magyar national state, can only be regarded as generous to the point of rashness. Skilfully timed concessions to Croatia left them a free hand in Transylvania, whose autonomy was sacrificed to the phan­tom of racial unity. There still remained the vital question of the nationalities in Hungary proper, whose existence it has long been the fashion to deny, but which is to-day acuter than ever.

In 1867, all political power in Hungary had been delivered into the hands of a single race. Many circumstances favoured the Magyar hegemony — a long political training, the existence of a strong national nobility, superior numbers and education, a strong geographical and economic position. But even with all these advantages, this hegemony could only be permanently assured by the assimilation of the non-Magyar races. The Slavs and Roumanians must either be so weakened as to lose their nationality altogether, or a day would inevitably come when they would not merely claim but vindicate their share of political rights. Deák and Eötvös were entirely at one with Tisza in regarding assimilation as the ideal solution of the racial problem: but they differed from him radically in their choice of methods. They held that a policy of mild­ness and concession would prove more efficacious than restric­tive measures, and that Magyar culture, if it was to prove equal to the task of assimilation, could only conquer in virtue of its innate superiority and moral force. On these grounds they refused to recognize the nationalities as separate entities within the state, but designed a law which should make it possible for every race to develop its own language and culture without [let or hindrance. Though it was strongly opposed by the non-Magyar leaders of 1868 as unjust and inadequate, there is little doubt that the vast mass of their followers would have been satisfied by the very genuine national guarantees which the law contained. But unhappily the intolerance of Deak's successors prevented its execution, and party exigencies have rendered the Government every year less inclined to make concessions to the nationalities.

The Law of Equal Rights of the Nationalities (XLIV., 1868), as definitely adopted by the Hungarian Parliament on De­cember 1, 1868, may be divided for purposes of criticism into two unequal and somewhat contradictory parts. The preamble and the first paragraph emphasize the political unity of the state, while the remaining paragraphs define the concessions which may be made to the individual nationalities without endangering that unity. " Since all citizens of Hungary, according to the principles of the constitution, form from a political point of view one nation — the indivisible unitary Hungarian nation — of which every citizen of the fatherland is a member, no matter to what nationality he belongs; since, moreover, this equality of right can only exist with reference to the official use of the various languages of the country . . . only in so far as is rendered necessary by the unity of the country and the practical possibility of Government and administration; the following rules will serve as standard regarding the official use of the various languages, while in all other matters the complete equality of the citizens remains untouched."[21] It becomes clear, then, at the very outset, that from a strictly legal standpoint the title of this law is a misnomer; the equality of the Hun­garian races is not absolute, but is made conditional upon reasons of state. Of course, this does not necessarily detract from the liberal nature of the law, for a state composed of mixed races is bound to have greater regard for the well­being of the whole than for that of any of the parts; but on the other hand, where rights are made conditional, more depends upon the manner in which the law is executed, and more loopholes are supplied for its evasion. And so it has proved in Hungary. The Law of Nationalities has remained almost from the very first a dead letter, its various provisions being treated in Government circles as wholly irreconcilable with the principles laid down in the preamble.

Like so many other laws on the statutebook of Hungary, the Law of Nationalities is vitiated by employing in the original text only a single word (magyar) for two essen­tially different conceptions — Hungarian, the wide geographical term embracing the whole territory of St. Stephen — and Magyar, the narrow racial term, applicable only to one out of the many nationalities of the country. The ambiguity of the phrase becomes apparent when " the political unity of a magyar nemzet (the Hungarian nation) " is under discus­sion; for the attempt has often been made to define " a magyar nemzet " as " az uralkodó nemzet," in other words as " the ruling race," not as " the Hungarian nation,"[22] and there is no doubt that Coloman Tisza himself favoured this view. The preamble, then, was undoubtedly intended by Deák as a concession to the extremer elements in Parliament, led by the future Premier Coloman Tisza, whose early reputa-^ tion as a Radical did not prevent him from developing into a typical bourgeois reactionary; and it is probable that without this preamble the bill would never have passed at all. Just as its omission might in later years have supplied the advocates of federalism with dangerous arguments, so its inclusion made it possible for the Chauvinists whose star was now in the ascendant, to lay stress upon its paramount importance, to dilate upon its incompatibility with the rest of the law, to argue that all subsequent paragraphs must be strictly interpreted in the light of the opening phrases, and finally to declare their execution to be inconsistent with the Magyar hegemony and the very existence of the race. This gradation of argument, which seems to its adherents as con­vincing as a proposition of Euclid, savours in reality only too strongly of the schoolmaster's famous sequence from white through whitish-grey to greyish-black and black.

I now propose to analyse as briefly as possible the main provisions of this all-important law, grouping them under six principal heads, and showing the alarming differences between theory and practice. In most cases references will be given to other chapters of the book, where the reader will find closer details of the non-execution of the law.

I. Magyar is proclaimed as the official language of the state, the language of Parliament, government and administra­tion (§i), of the county assemblies and their officials (§§2-5), of the law courts (§13), and of the University (§19). All these sections, we need hardly point out, have been observed with a strictness which serves to throw into greater relief the non-execution of the remainder. The need of a common language was obvious to all save the most frenzied apostles of separatism; and the historic traditions, numerical import­ance and geographical position of the Magyars gave to their language far the strongest claims, since German, its only possible rival, was associated with foreign aggression and an absolutist régime. The refusal to recognize the nation­alities as distinct bodies in the state was due to the rooted dislike which the genuine Magyar has always displayed for federalist schemes; but he can hardly be blamed for declining to make so far-reaching a concession to his opponents of 1848, until a more moderate experiment had been tried. The avowed aim of the law was not the Magyarization of the nationalities, but merely their conversion into loyal subjects of the Hungarian state — a consummation which could only be reached if Hungary were made attractive to them, and if free play were given to the development of their own national languages and customs. This view, so eloquently expounded by Baron Eötvös,[23] found expression in the Law of Nationali­ties; but the new generation, to whom Tisza was more akin than Deák, held the very different view that the nationalities were not fulfilling their patriotic duty if they merely became bilingual, and that they must show a greater preference for " the national language " than for their native tongue.[24]

2. Administration. — (a) While no other language save Magyar is admissible in Parliament,[25] in the county assemblies, on the other hand, the minutes may be drawn up in a second language as well as Magyar, if one-fifth of the members of the assembly desire it (§2); and in any case every member has the right to speak in his mother tongue (§3). The county assemblies in their intercourse with the Government must employ the Magyar language, but may, in addition to this, employ any other language which is officially used for their minutes (§4); in their intercourse with other assemblies, they may choose between Magyar and one of the official languages of their correspondent (§4), while in their inter­course with their own communes, or with individuals or insti­tutions in the county, the language of these latter is "so far as possible" to be employed (§6).[26] The language of state is to be employed by the county officials in their official busi­ness, but should this lead to difficulties, another language of the minutes is to be used (§5).

Opinions may differ as to the extent to which the above provisions were intended to serve a merely decorative purpose; certain it is that their seemingly liberal nature was counter­acted by the peculiar franchise — half virilist and only half elective — which was adopted for the county assemblies, and which tended to place the nationalities in a permanent minority too weak to enforce observance of the law. It has not been found possible to deprive non-Magyar members of the right to speak in their mother tongue; but the minutes are invariably drawn up in the Magyar language only, except in the few Saxon assemblies, where German is used as a supplementary language.[27]

How effectually all other languages save Magyar have been excluded from the local assemblies is shown by an incident which occurred as recently as the spring of 1908. A majority of the Town Council of Oedenburg (Sopron) insisted upon the minutes being drawn up in German as well as Magyar, in ac­cordance with section 2 of the Law of Nationalities; and the Minister of the Interior, when the case was referred to him, upheld the decision. So unheard-of a concession roused the Press of Budapest to great indignation, and their comments upon the incident made it very evident that Chauvinist public opinion would not tolerate the extension of this right to any other nationality save the German, whom even the extremists are still disposed to propitiate.

(b) The Act does not expressly enjoin upon the county officials a knowledge of the languages spoken in their district; it merely imposes on the Government the vague pledge " that in judicial and administrative offices persons belonging to the various nationalities shall so far as possible be employed, who possess the necessary linguistic knowledge and also other qualifications" (§27). Now it is obvious that unless this clause is very closely observed, all the other provisions which we have cited must of necessity remain a dead letter. And this is what has actually occurred. The extent to which linguistic attainments — so essential in a polyglot country like Hungary — have been neglected, may be realized from the Circular sent in December, 1907, by Count Andrássy, the Minister of the Interior, to aU the county authorities of Hungary. In it he insists that " those county officials who in virtue of their position have continual intercourse with the people — above all the szólgabirós[28] — shall posess a know­ledge of the language of the inhabitants of their district, at least sufficiently to converse without hindrance with the people, to understand them and to make their own orders comprehensible to them." As Count Andrássy justly remarks, " without a knowledge of the language of the population the official is like a foreigner to the people . . . cannot know their grievances and aims, cannot win their confidence "; but the necessity for such language and the late hour at which it is employed (on the eve of universal suffrage) throws an unpleasant light upon Hungarian administration.

(c) In the communal assemblies a wider latitude is allowed to the non-Magyar languages. Each assembly prescribes its own official language, and is bound to adopt a second language also at the wish of one-fifth of its members, each of whom enjoys the right to speak in his own language (§§ 20, 24), while in its intercourse with the county assembly and its officials, and with the central Government, it is free to employ either the language of state or its own official lan­guage, in its correspondence with other county assemblies, either the language of state or one of the official languages of that assembly. The communal officials are bound to employ the language of the district in their intercourse with its inhabitants (§21).²⁵²

These provisions have rarely been enforced. The members of communal assemblies are, of course, allowed to speak in their mother tongue, for the excellent reason that business would otherwise be impossible. But the minutes are drawn up in Magyar only, and any attempt to insist upon the use of another language is treated by the authorities as savouring of Panslavism. Two startling instances of this are given on page 248. Meanwhile, many of the local officials are entirely ignorant of the language spoken by the majority of the inhab­itants; and this leads to frequent embezzlement and other corrupt dealing. The schedules of taxation are especially liable to be falsified, owing to the absence of proper control upon many of the village notaries.

(d)  Every citizen has the right to present petitions or appli­cations in his mother tongue alike to his own communal or county assembly, to his ecclesiastical authorities and to the central Government: and to other communal or county assemblies either in the language of state or in one of their official languages (§23).

Perhaps the most effective commentary upon this clause is a reference to the speech delivered by the present Premier Dr. Alexander Wekerle, in Parliament, on June 2, 1906. After declaring that it was impossible to fulfil the linguistic desires of the non-Magyars in the Law of Nationalities, and adding that "properly trained individuals must be entrusted with administrative duties" (a highly suggestive phrase), he went on to say, " I am not in a position to fulfil that provision of the Law of Nationalities, by which the decision is to be given in the same language in which the petition is handed in." For once the mask is lifted, and no attempt is made to conceal the violation of the law.

(e)  Nationality is not to be an obstacle to the holding of any office or dignity, and the Government is bound to fill judicial and administrative posts — above all the position of High Sheriff of the county — with members of the various nationalities, so long as they possess the necessary linguistic qualifications (§27).

In eleven counties the Roumanians, in seven counties the Slovaks, forma majority of from 66 to 96 percent, of the popu­lation, and yet not a single Roumanian or Slovak has been appointed High Sheriff for the past generation. Before the union with Hungary, there were over a dozen Roumanian High Sheriffs in Transylvania, and almost one-third of the administrative officials were Roumanian,[29] but in 1891 there were only 183 Roumanians among the 3,105 officials of Tran­sylvania, or 5.8 per cent., whereas on a strict basis of popula­tion there would have been at least 60 per cent.) and in the ten counties of Hungary proper which contain a Roumanian population, there were 226 among 3,649, or only 6 per cent.[30]

3. Justice. — Every individual has the right to employ his mother tongue before his own communal or district court (járásbíróság: Bezirksgericht) (§7). In such cases the judge is bound to accept and deal with petitions and com­plaints, and to issue summonses, in the language of the parties concerned. The reports of the trial are to be drawn up in whichever of the official languages of the county may be agreed upon between the parties at law. If they cannot agree, the judge decides which language is to be used; but in this case the contents of the reports must be interpreted to the parties. The verdict is to be pronounced in the language in which the trial has been conducted, but the judge is bound to supply the parties with an authentic translation of the verdict in their own language, provided this be in use in the county assembly (§8). In cases of appeal, which have been conducted in a non-Magyar language, the higher court is to translate the necessary documents by means of a properly qualified person, at the public expense (§12).

All these provisions remain a dead letter. Indeed, the re-organization of the judicial system of Hungary in 1870 involved the abolition of the old county courts, and as the rights assured to the nationalities in them were not extended to the newly created courts, the most essential judicial con­cessions thus tacitly fell into abeyance within a couple of years of the original grant, and have never been renewed since. And yet Magyar writers continue to quote the judicial sections of the Law of Nationalities as though they were still in force to-day.

At present the proceedings of all the Hungarian courts, whether of first, second or third instance, are conducted in the Magyar language. Many of the judges and public prose­cutors — though not all — understand the languages of the districts in which their courts are situated; but the reports of all trials are none the less drawn up in Magyar only, all summonses are issued in Magyar only, even when the party concerned is ignorant of that language, and the verdict is announced in Magyar only. Petitions or documents are not accepted by the courts if they are written in a non-Magyar language, and although official interpreters are attached to most of the district courts, they are not provided gratis, but are entitled to demand a daily fee from the parties at law, if their services are employed. All notices and proclamations are drawn up exclusively in the Magyar language, even in districts where over 90 per cent, of the population does not understand the language. Thus it is no exaggeration to say that the non-Magyar peasant stands like an ox before the courts of his native land, though this phrase has on a notorious occasion been treated as " incitement against the Magyar nationality."[31]

4. Church autonomy receives various effective guarantees. The church courts are free to fix their own language (§10). The higher church authorities prescribe their own language of deliberation and of intercourse with subordinates, and are merely bound to provide Magyar translations of their minutes, if required (§15). Their correspondence with the Government must be conducted in Magyar as well as in their own language; but the lower church authorities are free to correspond either in Magyar or in their own language, according to their convenience (§16). Finally, each parish or congregation (egyházközség: Kirchengemeinde) has the absolute right to prescribe the language in which its affairs are to be conducted, and the language of instruction in its schools, within the limits imposed by the Education Act of 1868 (§14).[32]

The Magyar, despite his perfervid national feeling, has always been noted for his religious tolerance, and it is thus a relief to find that while all other portions of the Law of Nationalities have been ruthlessly violated, those dealing with church autonomy have on the whole been loyally re­spected. The Congress of the Roumanian Orthodox Church has, it is true, been prevented from meeting on no fewer than six occasions,[33] though the law of 1863 recognizes its right of triennial assembly; the election of one Roumanian Metro­politan and of three Serb Patriarchs, though carried out under strictly legal forms, has been annulled by the Hungarian Government.[34] But it would be unjust to characterize these as mere violations of Church autonomy. Indeed such action is in full accord with the settled policy of the House of Habsburg, which has for generations claimed a veto upon all episcopal appointments within its dominions, and has even enforced this claim at the Papal Conclave itself.

5. Education. — In all state schools the language of instruc­tion is to be prescribed by the Minister of Education. " But since," in the words of the law, " the success of public instruc­tion, from the standpoint of general culture and well-being, is one of the highest aims of the state, the latter is bound to ensure that all citizens of whatever nationality living together in considerable numbers, shall be able in the neighbourhood of their homes, to obtain instruction in their mother tongues, up to the point where the higher academic culture begins " (§17). In other words, the state pledges itself to provide primary and secondary instruction for all its citizens in the mother tongue — either directly in its own schools, or indirectly, by supporting the denominational schools.

Let us turn from theory to practice. In the year 1904-5 there were 1,822 state elementary schools; but in 1,651 (or 90.6 per cent.) of these the language of instruction was exclu­sively Magyar, in 170 a supplementary language was used, and in only one was the language of instruction other than Magyar.[35] In all the 138 state grammar schools, in all the 26 state industrial schools and in the only state commercial school, Magyar is the exclusive language of instruction. In secondary education the conditions are even worse. Of the 38 state gymnasiums[36] the language of instruction is exclusively Magyar in all save one, and this solitary exception is in Fiume, where both Magyar and Italian are used. Neither German, Slovak, Serb nor Roumanian are used in any of the state gymnasiums, although these are attended by a large number of non-Magyar pupils. Nor is it possible to argue that the nationalities are already adequately provided with schools, and that the erection of non-Magyar schools by the state would therefore be superfluous. On the contrary, the nationalities are lament­ably in need of fresh schools, and all the resources of the non­Magyar churches are strained to the uttermost to support the few schools which they already possess. While on a basis of population 48 per cent, of the schools should be non-Magyar, in actual fact only 19 p.c. of the elementary schools, 7.1 p.c. of the gymnasia and 7-8 per cent, of the Realschulen are non­Magyar, and there is not a single Slovak or Ruthene secondary school in existence![37] There is thus no escape from the conclu­sion that the Hungarian Government is pursuing the deliberate policy of stifling culture and education among the non-Magyars and concentrating its efforts upon Magyarization.

Paragraphs 18 and 19 enjoin the erection at the National University,[38] of chairs for all the native languages of Hungary, and of similar chairs at the various high schools situated in mixed districts. These provisions have been only partially enforced. Chairs of German, Slav and Roumanian have really been erected at both Budapest and Kolozsvár, but while German is, of course, indispensable throughout Hungary, none of the other non-Magyar languages of the country are taught at any of the Academies of Law.

6. Association. — Intimately connected with these educa­tional provisions of the Act are the rights of association which it assures to the various nationalities. Individuals, communes and denominations are at liberty to found schools and colleges for the furtherance of language, art, science, industry or agriculture; and individuals are secured the right to form societies and associations such as correspond to " their lawful aspirations" (§26).

An admirable illustration of the manner in which this clause has been observed is supplied by the treatment of the Slovaks in their efforts to found secondary schools. The three Slovak gymnasia which had been founded by private effort between 1862 and 1868, were arbitrarily dissolved in 1874 by ministerial order (see p. 165), and their entire funds were confiscated by the authorities. In September, 1875, the Cisdanubian Synod[39] of the Lutheran Church resolved to found a new Slovak gymnasium in Turócz St. Márton, and appointed a committee to draw up statutes and to take the necessary steps for collecting funds. By the year 1894 over 80,000 florins had been collected, the syllabus of the school drawn up and a suitable building acquired; but the General Assembly rejected the scheme,[40] on the ground that " there was no need for the foundation of a Slovak gymnasium, since the district schools were only attended by a small per­centage of Slovak-speaking pupils." The erection of a deno­minational gymnasium being thus finally thwarted, a number of Slovak patriots broached the idea of founding an inter­denominational Slovak school. On November 16, 1895, a petition was submitted to the Minister of the Interior for leave to found a society to collect funds for such a school. After a delay of eighteen months this petition was rejected on the following grounds: " 2. 18830. I return herewith the draft of statutes of the society for the foundation of an interdeno­minational gymnasium with Slovak language of instruction, with the remark that I cannot sanction this, since in our country the studies and culture of our young men are already sufficiently cared for in the existing secondary schools, and because there exist no school-books in the Slovak language written in a patriotic spirit, and it would therefore be necessary to use Czech school-books. Budapest, April 9, 1897. Perczel, Minister." A fresh petition, emphasizing the crying needs of a Slovak gymnasium and the fact that suitable school­books can only be forthcoming when there are schools where they can be used, was left unanswered for close upon two years, and then summarily dismissed in the following terms: "2. 122212. Owing to the reasons adduced in the circular of my predecessor in office (April 9, 1897; 2. 18830), I cannot sanction the statutes of the society for the erection of an interdenominational gymnasium with Slovak language of instruction. Budapest, December 5, 1899. Széll, Minister.

Thus in direct defiance of sections 17 and 26 of the Law of Nationalities, over two million Slovaks have been deprived for a whole generation of the most essential means of culture and progress, while all the time their backward intellectual condition has been cited by plausible controversialists as a reason for denying them the advantages enjoyed by their Magyar neighbours.

Meanwhile the Ruthenes of Hungary are also without a gymnasium of any kind, and the Roumanians of Arad and Karánsebes have repeatedly applied to the Government for permission to found gymnasia out of their own funds, but always without success.[41]

No law of association exists in Hungary, and the Government uses its arbitrary powers to prohibit or suppress even such harm­less organizations as temperance societies, choral unions or women's leagues. The details of this policy will be found in chapter xiv., on association and assembly in Hungary.

Under such circumstances, it is difficult to understand how any one conversant with the facts can venture to speak of the execution of the Law of Nationalities. None the less it has become the universal practice of modern Chauvinist writers to cite this law as a signal proof of Magyar generosity; nor is it easy to ascribe to mere ignorance or confused reason­ing a practice in which many politicians of real eminence have indulged. A striking example is supplied by a leading article which appeared in the Budapesti Hirlap[42] of 3 April, 1908. Its author devotes the front page of the journal to denying the non-execution of the Law of Nationalities, and after emphasiz­ing the extreme importance of the qualifying words " so far as possible " (lehetőségig) contained in some of its provisions, calmly points out that the all-important paragraph 17 " can­not be enforced, because the necessary teaching staff who could teach in a foreign tongue (by this he means the five non-Magyar languages of Hungary !) and also the necessary customers (by this he presumably means the eight million non-Magyars of Hungary !) are wanting." In short, the writer attempts to prove the execution of the law by demonstrating the impossi­bility of its execution ! The honest course for the Magyars to pursue would have been to revoke the Law of Nationalities altogether, and to admit frankly that it was inconsistent with the Magyar hegemony. But this would have robbed them of a convenient device for deluding uninformed foreign public opinion. Count Andrássy, it is true, hinted in an unguarded moment,[43] that it would be necessary to abrogate the entire Law; but it is more probable that Hungarian statesmen will continue to pass new laws which tacitly annul isolated provi­sions of the Law of Nationalities, while cunningly leaving the latter upon the statute book for purposes of decoration.

A slovak IDYLL

(From the painting by Yeža Uprka)