Part 20

“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.