Part 22

“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 The recruits were voted; the condition was withdrawn.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.