[Footnote 618: Art. 103. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 284. For a synopsis of the law of July 8, 1887, whereby an apportionment of functions was made among the various departments see Dupriez, Les Ministres, II., 239-246.]

[Footnote 619: Members of the Council are re-elected, almost as a matter of course, as long as they are willing to serve. Between 1848 and 1893 the average period of service exceeded ten years. Lowell, Governments and Parties, II., 203.]

*469. Actual Character of the Council.*—The Federal Council, although at certain points resembling a cabinet, is not a cabinet, and no such thing as cabinet government, or a parliamentary system, can be said to exist in Switzerland. The Council does, it is true, prepare measures and lay them before the Assembly. Its members even appear on the floor of the two chambers and defend these measures. But the councillors are not, and may not be, members of the Assembly; they do not, of necessity, represent a common political party, faith, or programme, they are not necessarily agreed among themselves upon the merits or demerits of a particular legislative proposal; and if overruled by (p. 425) a majority of the Assembly they do not so much as think of retiring from office, for each member has been elected by a separate ballot for a fixed term.[620] In other words, the Council is essentially what Swiss writers have themselves denominated it, i.e., an executive committee of the Federal Assembly. It possesses a large measure of solidarity, but only for the purposes of routine business. Quite superior to it in every way—so much so that even its most ordinary administrative measures may be set aside—is the Assembly, as against which the Council possesses not a shred of constitutional prerogative. In the Assembly is vested ultimate authority, and in the event of a clash of policies what the Assembly orders the Council performs. Between the executive and the legislative branches of the government the relation is quite as close as it is in a parliamentary system, but the relation is of a totally different sort.[621]

[Footnote 620: The resignation, in 1891, of M. Welti, a member of the Council since 1867, by reason of the fact that the people rejected his project for the governmental purchase of railway shares occasioned general consternation.]

[Footnote 621: For interesting observations upon the advantages and disadvantages of the Swiss system see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II., 204-208. See also Vincent, Government in Switzerland, Chap. 16; Dupriez, Les Ministres, II., 188-203.]

*470. The Council's Functions.*—The functions of the Council are at the same time executive, legislative, and judicial. On the executive side it is the duty of the body to "execute the laws and resolutions of the Confederation and the judgments of the Federal Court"; to watch over the external interests of the Confederation and to conduct foreign relations; to safeguard the welfare, external and internal, of the state; to make such appointments as are not intrusted to any other agency; to administer the finances of the Confederation, introduce the budget, and submit accounts of receipts and expenses; to supervise the conduct of all officers and employees of the Confederation; to enforce the observance of the federal constitution and the guaranty of the cantonal constitutions; and to manage the federal military establishment. In respect to legislation it is made the duty of the Council to introduce bills or resolutions into the Federal Assembly and to give its opinion upon the proposals submitted to it by the chambers or by the cantons; also to submit to the Assembly at each regular session an account of its own administration, together with a report upon the internal conditions and the foreign relations of the state.[622] The Council possesses no veto upon the Assembly's measures. The judicial functions of the Council are such as arise from the fact that there are in Switzerland no administrative courts, (p. 426) so that the varied kinds of administrative cases which have been withheld from the jurisdiction of the Federal Tribunal are in practice dealt with directly by the Federal Council, with appeal, as a rule, to the Assembly.[623]

[Footnote 622: Art. 102. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 282-284; Dupriez, Les Ministres, II., 218-225.]

[Footnote 623: Art. 113. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 286. The nature and functions of the Swiss executive are treated briefly in Vincent, Government in Switzerland, Chap. 17, and Adams and Cunningham, The Swiss Confederation, Chap. 4. An excellent account is that in Dupriez, Les Ministres, II., 182-246. Of value are Blumer and Morel, Handbuch des schweizerischen Bundesstaatsrechts, III., 34-92, and Dubs, Le droit public de la confederation suisse, II., 77-105.]

II. LEGISLATION: THE FEDERAL ASSEMBLY

With specific reservation of the sovereign rights of the people and of the cantons, the constitution vests the exercise of the supreme authority of the Confederation in the Bundesversammlung, or Federal Assembly. Unlike the cantonal legislatures, the Federal Assembly consists of two houses—a Nationalrath, or National Council, and a Staenderath, or Council of the States.[624] The one comprises essentially a house of representatives; the other, a senate. The adoption, in the constitution of 1848, of the hitherto untried bicameral principle came about as a compromise between conflicting demands of the same sort that were voiced in the Philadelphia convention of 1787—the demand, that is, of the smaller federated units for an equality of political power and that of the larger ones for a proportioning of such power to population.

[Footnote 624: In French, the Conseil National and the Conseil des Etats.]

*471. The National Council: Composition and Organization.*—The National Council is composed of deputies chosen at a general election, for a term of three years, by direct manhood suffrage. The constitution stipulates that there shall be one representative for every 20,000 inhabitants, or major fraction thereof, and a reapportionment is made consequent upon each decennial census. The electoral districts are so laid out that no one comprises portions of different cantons; but they are of varying sizes and are entitled to unequal numbers of representatives, according to their population. Within the district all representatives, if there are more than one, are chosen on a general ticket, and the individual elector has a right to vote for a number of candidates equal to the number of seats to be filled. The quota of representatives falling to the various cantons under this arrangement varies from one in Uri and in Zug to twenty-two in Zuerich and twenty-nine in Bern. Every canton and each of the six half-cantons is entitled to at least one deputy. The total number in 1911 was 189. The electorate consists of all male Swiss who have attained their (p. 427) twentieth year and who are in possession of the franchise within their respective cantons. The establishment of electoral districts, as well as the regulation of the conduct of federal elections, has been accomplished, under provision of the constitution, by federal statute. Voting is in all cases by secret ballot, and elections take place always on the same day (the last Sunday in October) throughout the entire country. An absolute majority of the votes cast is necessary for election, save that, following two unsuccessful attempts to procure such a majority within a district, at the third trial a simple plurality is sufficient. Except that no member of the clergy may be chosen, every citizen in possession of the federal franchise is eligible to a seat in the National Council.[625] Members receive a small salary, which is proportioned to days of actual attendance and paid out of the federal treasury.

[Footnote 625: This denial of clerical eligibility was inspired by fear of Catholic influences.]

At each regular or extraordinary session the National Council chooses from among its members a president, a vice-president, and four tellers, under the provision, however, that a member who during a regular session has held the office of president is ineligible either as president or vice-president at the ensuing regular session, and that the same member may not be vice-president during two consecutive regular sessions. In all elections within the National Council the president participates as any other member; in legislative matters he possesses a vote only in the event of a tie. The president, vice-president, and tellers together comprise the "bureau" of the Council, by which most of the committees are nominated, votes are counted, and routine business is transacted.[626]

[Footnote 626: Arts. 72-79. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 277-278.]

*472. The Council of the States: Composition and Status.*—Superficially, the Swiss Council of the States resembles the American Senate, and it is commonly understood that the framers of the constitution of 1848 created the institution not merely by reason of an inevitable tendency to perpetuate in some measure the purely federal features of the old Diet, but also in consequence of a deliberate purpose to set up a legislative body which should fulfill essentially those complementary and restraining functions which in the United States were assigned to the upper chamber. In point of fact, however, the Swiss Council has little in common with its American counterpart. It consists of forty-four members, two chosen within each canton; and to this extent it indeed resembles the Senate. The manner of election and the qualifications of members, however, as well as tenure of office and the arrangements made for remuneration, are not regulated, as are similar matters in the United States, by the (p. 428) constitution, or by federal authority, but, on the contrary, are left entirely to be determined by the individual cantons. The consequence is a total lack of uniformity in these highly important matters. In some cantons members are elected by popular vote; in others, by the legislative assembly. In some they are chosen for one year; in others, for two; in still others, for three. The consequence is that the Council is commonly lacking in compactness and morale. More serious still is the fact that the functions of the upper chamber are in all respects identical with those of the lower. The American Senate has power and character of its own, quite apart from that of the House of Representatives; the Swiss Council has nothing of the kind. Its organization, even, is an almost exact replica of that of the lower chamber.[627] In the earlier days of the present constitutional system the Council enjoyed high prestige and influence; but by reason of the conditions that have been described the body in time fell into decline. Able and ambitious statesmen have preferred usually to be identified with the lower house. The upper chamber possesses large powers—powers nominally co-ordinate with those of the lower one—and it has acted not infrequently with sufficient independence to defeat measures advocated by the National Council. But, without being the feeble upper chamber that is commonly associated with a parliamentary system of government, it is yet essentially lacking in the initiative and independence of a true senate.[628]

[Footnote 627: "Neither the president nor the vice-president may be chosen at any session from the canton from which the president for the preceding session was chosen; and the vice-presidency may not be held during two successive regular sessions by representatives of the same canton." Art. 82.]

[Footnote 628: Arts. 80-83. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 278.]

*473. Powers of the National Assembly.*—In the constitution it is stipulated that the National Council and the Council of the States shall have the right to consider all subjects placed within the competence of the Confederation and not assigned to any other federal authority.[629] The range of this competence is enormous. There are, in the first place, certain functions which the two houses perform while sitting jointly under the direction of the president of the National Council. These are electoral and judicial in character and comprise (1) the election of the Federal Council, or executive committee of the Confederation, the federal judges, the chancellor,[630] and the generals of the federal army; (2) the granting of pardons; (p. 429) and (3) the adjustment of jurisdictional conflicts between different branches of the federal governmental system.

[Footnote 629: Art. 84. Ibid., II., 278.]

[Footnote 630: The principal duty of the chancellor is the keeping of the minutes of the National Council. A vice-chancellor, appointed by the Federal Council, performs a similar function in the Council of States, under responsibility to the chancellor.]

Much more extensive are the powers which the houses, sitting separately, exercise concurrently. The constitution requires that the councils be assembled at least once annually. In practice, they meet in June and December of each year, regular sessions extending as a rule through four or five weeks. At the request of either one-fourth of the members of the National Council or of five cantons an extraordinary session must be held, and there is a probability of one such session each year, ordinarily in March. The powers assigned the chambers to be exercised in their concurrent capacities may be classified variously. The more important are: (1) the enactment of laws and ordinances upon the organization and election of federal authorities and upon all subjects which by the constitution are placed within the federal competence; (2) the conduct of foreign relations, particularly the concluding of treaties and alliances with foreign powers, the supervision of conventions entered into by the cantons (in the event that the Federal Council, or any canton, protests against such cantonal arrangements), the declaring of war and the concluding of peace, and the taking of measures for the safety, independence, and neutrality of the Confederation; (3) the control of the federal army; (4) the adoption of the annual budget, the authorizing of federal loans, and the auditing of public accounts; (5) the taking of measures for the enforcement of the provisions of the federal constitution, for the carrying out of the guaranty of the cantonal constitutions, for the fulfillment of federal obligations, and for the supervision of the federal administration and of the federal courts; and (6) the revision of the federal constitution.[631] It will be perceived that the powers exercised by the chambers are principally legislative, but also in no small degree executive and judicial; that, as has already been emphasized, the two councils comprise the real directive agency of the Confederation.

[Footnote 631: Art. 85, Secs. 1-14. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 278-279.]

*474. The Assembly's Procedure.*—Federal laws, decrees, and resolutions are passed only by agreement of the two councils. Any measure may originate in either house and may be introduced by any member. There are committees upon various subjects, but bills are referred to them only by special vote. Committee members are chosen by the chamber directly or by the chamber's "bureau," as the chamber itself may determine. In each house a majority constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business, and measures are passed by a simple majority. Sittings, (p. 430) as a rule, are public. It is expressly forbidden that members shall receive from their constituents, or from the cantonal governments, instructions respecting the manner in which they shall vote.[632]

[Footnote 632: For a brief account of the procedure of the chambers see Vincent, Government in Switzerland, 181-187.]

III. LEGISLATION: THE REFERENDUM AND THE INITIATIVE

From the domain of cantonal legislative procedure there has been carried over into federal law-making the fundamental principle of the referendum. The federal referendum exists to-day in two forms, i.e., the optional and the obligatory. The one appeared for the first time in the revised constitution of 1874 and is applicable exclusively to projects of ordinary legislation. The other was established by the constitution of 1848 and is applicable solely to proposed amendments of that instrument.

*475. The Optional Referendum: Laws and Resolutions.*—After a law which has been enacted by the Federal Assembly has been published it enters regularly upon a probationary period of ninety days during which, under stipulated conditions, it may be referred directly to the people for ratification or rejection. The only exceptions are afforded by those measures which, by declaration of the councils, are of a private rather than a general character, and those which are "urgent." Such acts take effect at once. But all others are suspended until there shall have been adequate opportunity for the carrying through of a referendum. At any time within the ninety-day period a referendum may be demanded, either by the people directly or by the cantonal governments. Petitions signed by as many as 30,000 voters, or adopted by the legislatures of as many as eight cantons, render it obligatory upon the Federal Council to arrange for the submission of a measure to a referendum within four weeks after the announcement of the demand has been made. The method of the referendum is carefully prescribed by federal legislation. Every citizen in possession of unimpaired civil rights is entitled to vote, and the voting takes place under the supervision of the authorities of the commune and of the canton. If in a majority of the cantons a preponderance of votes is cast in favor of the measure in hand, the Federal Council proclaims the fact and the measure goes at once into operation. An adverse majority, on the other hand, renders the measure null. In the event that no referendum is demanded, the measure, of course, goes automatically into effect at the expiration of the ninety-day period. Since its introduction (p. 431) into the federal constitution the principle of the legislative referendum has been brought to bear upon a not inconsiderable number of legislative projects. The proportion, indeed, of laws falling within the range of the system which have been subjected to the popular vote, while varying widely from time to time, has been not far from ten per cent; and of the measures actually voted upon several of importance have been rejected. In all instances the demand has arisen directly from citizen petitioners, not from the cantonal governments.[633]

[Footnote 633: On the operation of the optional referendum see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II., 252-261. "From 1874 till 1908 the Federal Assembly passed 261 bills and resolutions which could constitutionally be subjected to the referendum. Thirty of these 261 were actually voted on by the people, who ratified eleven and rejected nineteen of them. The effect of the federal optional legislative referendum was, then, to hold up a little more than seven per cent of the statutory output of the Federal Assembly." W. E. Rappard, in American Political Science Review, Aug., 1912, 357. On the most recent exercise of the federal referendum (the adoption, February 4, 1912, of a national Accident and Sickness Insurance bill) see M. Turmann, Le referendum suisse du 4 fevrier—la loi federale sur l'assurance-maladie et l'assurance accident, in Le Correspondant, Feb. 10, 1912. This particular referendum was called for by 75,000 voters. The measure submitted was approved by a vote of 287,566 to 241,416, on a poll of 63.04 per cent of the registered electorate.]

*476. The Obligatory Referendum: Constitutional Amendments.*—In its application to laws and resolutions the referendum is optional; in application to constitutional amendments it is obligatory. Revision of the Swiss constitution may be accomplished at any time, in whole or in part, and in a variety of modes. In the event that the legislative councils are able to agree upon a scheme of revision they vote the adoption of the proposed amendment precisely as if it were an ordinary statute, and it is thereupon submitted to the people for acceptance or rejection. If, however, the two houses disagree upon the question of a total revision, or if as many as 50,000 voters make demand for a total revision, there must be put to the people the preliminary question as to whether there shall be a revision at all. If the will of the majority is affirmative, new legislative councils must be elected, and to them falls the obligation of executing the popular mandate.

When the question is one of but partial revision the procedure is somewhat different. Partial revision may be instituted either by the councils or by petition of 50,000 voters. When a popular petition is presented there are four possible courses of action: (1) if the project is presented in general terms and the councils are in agreement upon it, they reduce the proposal to specific form and submit it to the people; (2) if the councils are not in agreement (p. 432) upon the project they put to the people the preliminary question of whether an amendment of the general type proposed is desirable, and if the vote is affirmative they proceed with the revision; (3) if the petition is presented in a form that is specific and final and the councils are in agreement upon it, the project is submitted forthwith to the people; and (4) if the councils are not in agreement upon a specific project so advanced, they may prepare a project of their own, or recommend the rejection of the proposed amendment, and they may submit their counter-project or their recommendation at the same time that the initiative petition is presented to the people.[634] In no case may an amendment be put into effect until it has received the assent of a majority of those voting thereon in a majority of the cantons. Of seventeen constitutional amendments submitted by the Federal Assembly between 1874 and 1908 twelve were ratified and five were rejected.

[Footnote 634: Arts. 118-123. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 287-289.]

*477. The Popular Initiative.*—The right of popular initiative in the revision of the constitution was established by an amendment of July 5, 1891, through the united efforts of all the anti-Radical parties and groups. The purpose underlying the amendment was to break the monopoly long enjoyed by the Radicals by placing within the hands of any fifty thousand citizens the power to compel the federal government to take under consideration proposed modifications of the constitution, to prepare projects relating to them, and to submit these projects to the ultimate decision of the people. When the system was established many persons seriously feared that the way had been thrown open for frequent, needless, and revolutionary change, by which the stability of the state would be impaired. Such apprehension, however, has been proved groundless. During a score of years only nine popularly-initiated amendments have been voted upon, and only three have been incorporated in the fundamental law. One of the three, adopted in 1893, prohibited the Jewish method of slaughtering animals, and was purely a product of the antisemitic movement. The other two were adopted in 1908. One authorized for the first time legislation by the federal authorities upon subjects relating to the trades and professions; the other prohibited the manufacture and sale of absinthe. A number of other more or less sweeping amendments, it is true, have been proposed, but all alike have failed of adoption. Thus, in 1894, perished a socialistic scheme whereby the state was to obligate itself to provide employment for every able-bodied man, and in the same year, a project to pay over to the cantons a bonus of two francs per capita from the rapidly increasing returns of the (p. 433) customs duties.[635] Similarly, in 1900, failed two interesting projected reforms relating to the federal electoral system. One of these provided for the introduction, in the various cantons, of the principle of proportional representation in the election of members of the National Council. The other provided for the election of the members of the Federal Council, not, as at present, by the General Assembly, but by direct popular vote, the whole mass of electors voting, not by cantons, but as one national constituency. In June, 1900, both of these electoral proposals were rejected by the legislative chambers, and in the ensuing November the people ratified the rejection. In 1903, there was defeated in the same way a proposal to base representation in the National Council, not upon the total population of the country, but upon the Swiss population alone. In 1909-10 the proportional representation project was revived, but with a negative result.[636]

[Footnote 635: C. Borgeaud, Le plebiscite du 4 novembre 1894, in Revue du Droit Public, Nov.-Dec., 1894. The adverse votes were decisive, i.e., 308,289 to 75,880 and 347,401 to 145,362 respectively.]

[Footnote 636: The introduction of proportional representation in Switzerland is advocated especially by the Socialists and the Clericals, to whom principally would accrue the benefits of the system. The Liberals are favorable to the principle, though they prefer to postpone the issue. The Radicals are solidly opposed. At the referendum of 1900 the project was rejected by 11-1/2 to 10-1/2 cantons, and by a popular majority of 75,000; at that of October 23, 1910, it was approved by 12 to 10 cantons, but was rejected popularly by a majority of less than 25,000 (265,194 negative, 240,305 affirmative). Rather curiously, the defeat arose largely from the defection of the Catholic canton of Freiburg, which in 1900 was favorable by a vote of 13,000 to 3,800. The canton's vote in 1910 was for rejection, by 11,200 to 3,900. By those best acquainted with the situation this astonishing reversal is explained by the influence which is exercised in the canton to-day by M. Python, a dictator who opposes any innovation whereby his own controlling position would be menaced. Not unnaturally, the friends of the project (and in 1910 all parties save the Radicals gave it their support) regard the outcome in 1910 as a certain forecast of eventual victory. In nine of the cantonal governments, beginning with that of Ticino in 1891, the principle has been already put in operation. In truth, the defeat of 1910 was followed promptly by a triumph in the important canton of St. Gall, where the proportional system was adopted for the first time, February 5, 1911, for elections of the cantonal council. See E. Secretan, Suisse, in Revue Politique et Parlementaire, Feb., 1911; G. Daneo, La rappresentanza proporzionale nella Svizzera, in Nuova Antologia, Sept. 16, 1910.]

Among reforms that have been much discussed in recent years has been the extension of the initiative and of the obligatory referendum to all federal legislation. Both apply as yet only to constitutional amendments. In 1906 the Federal Council went so far as to submit to the legislative councils a proposal intended to meet the first of these ends. The purport of the proposal was that fifty thousand voters, or eight cantons, should have the right at any time to (p. 434) demand the passage, modification, or repeal of any sort of federal law or federal decree. In December, 1906, the project was debated in the National Council; after which it was referred to the Federal Council for further consideration. The proposal is still pending, but its eventual adoption is probable.[637]

[Footnote 637: Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 280-281. For references on the initiative and the referendum see p. 420. A very satisfactory appraisal of the operation of these principles in Switzerland may be found in Lloyd, A Sovereign People, chaps. 14-15. See also W. E. Rappard, The Initiative and the Referendum in Switzerland, in American Political Science Review, Aug., 1912.]

IV. POLITICAL PARTIES

*478. Centralism vs. Federalism.*—Until the middle of the nineteenth century the most fundamental of political questions in modern Switzerland was that of centralization, and the most enduring of political cleavages among the people was that which marked off the "centralists" from the "federalists." There was a time when the annihilation of the cantons and the establishment of a thoroughly consolidated state was not only openly advocated but confidently predicted. With the establishment, however, of the reasonable compromise embodied in the constitution of 1848 the issue of centralization dropped pretty much into the background. There continued to be, and still are, "centralizers;" but the term has come long since to denote merely men who, with due regard for the susceptibilities of the cantons, direct their influence habitually to the strengthening of the central agencies of government.

The constitution of 1848 was the work of a combination of centralist elements which acquired the general designation of Radicals. Opposed to the Radicals were the federalist Moderates. Between 1848 and 1874 controlling influence was maintained steadily by the Radicals, although during the decade 1850-1860 there was a fusion of parties in consequence of which there existed through many years an extremely intricate political situation. Gradually there emerged a three-fold party grouping, which has survived uninterruptedly from the era of the constitutional revision of 1874 until our own day. The three parties, as aligned now through more than a generation in the National Council, are: (1) the Right, or Clericals; (2) the Left, or Radicals; and (3) the Centre, or Liberals. To these, in very recent times, must be added a small but growing group of the Extreme Left, comprising ultra-democrats and socialists.

*479. The Parties of To-day.*—The basis of segregation of the Right is primarily religious. The party is thoroughly clerical, and it has for its fundamental object the defense of the Catholic church and the (p. 435) interests of the Catholic population. In the Catholic cantons it occupies the field almost alone, and everywhere it is the most compact and zealous of the parties, although even it is not without a certain amount of division of opinion and of policy. The Left, or Radical party, has always represented a combination of widely varied shades of radicalism and democracy. Its greatest strength lies in the predominantly Protestant cantons, and it is distinctly anti-clerical. Large portions of the party have ceased long since to be really radical, although on one side there is an imperceptible shading off into the ranks of the advanced democrats and socialists. Through many years the party has been lacking notoriously in cohesion. Between the Conservative Right and the Radical Left stands the Centre, or the Liberal group, lacking most notably of all in unity, but preserving the traditional Swiss principles of personal freedom in defiance of the tendency of the state in the direction of paternalism. The Liberals are not strong numerically, but they comprise men of wealth and influence (largely conservative Protestants), and in the shaping of economic policies, in which they are interested principally, they sometimes exercise a powerful influence. During the years immediately following the constitutional revision of 1874 no one of these three parties possessed in the Federal Assembly a clear majority, with the consequence that the Centre was able to maintain a balance between the other two. Gradually, however, the Radicals regained their former ascendancy, and in subsequent years their preponderance, in especially the lower chamber, has tended steadily to be increased.

*480. Party Stability and Strength.*—Concerning the political parties of Switzerland two or three things are worthy of special observation. The first is the remarkable stability which these parties, despite their obvious lack of cohesion, exhibit from the point of view both of party identity and of party strength. Except the Socialists, who have ceased to vote and act with the Radicals, there has sprung into existence not one new political party since 1874. Numerous and varied as have been the political issues of these four decades, no one of them has given rise to a new party grouping. And, save for the gradual augmentation of Radical strength to which allusion has been made, there has been in this period no noteworthy change in the relative strength of the party groups. Sudden fluctuations, such as in other countries are common, are in Switzerland quite unknown. The reasons are varied and not wholly clear, but among them seem to be the brevity of national legislative sessions, the lack of federal patronage whereby party zeal may be whetted, the indirect method of electing the Federal Council, and the essentially non-partisan character of the (p. 436) referendum.[638] Party strength in the National Council following the election of 1878 was: Clericals, 35; Liberals, 31; Radicals, 69. After the election of 1881 it was: Clericals, 36; Liberals, 26; and Radicals, 83. In these proportions the six triennial elections between 1884 and 1902 produced no important change, although in 1890 the Socialists broke somewhat into the balance by winning six seats. After the census of 1900 the number of members of the Council was raised from 147 to 167, and the results of the election of 1902 were as follows: Clericals, 35; Liberals, 25; Radicals, 97; Socialists, 9; and Independents, 1. In 1905 the Radicals, who hitherto had co-operated with the Socialists in many constituencies, broke with them upon the question of military policy, with the result that the Socialist contingent in the Council was cut to two. In 1908 and 1911 the Socialists made, however, some recovery; so that, on the whole, the party situation in the Council remains to-day very nearly what it was ten years ago. By popular suffrage the Radicals are continued uninterruptedly in control, although the people do not hesitate again and again to reject measures framed by Radical administrators and law-makers and submitted to the vote of the nation.

[Footnote 638: Upon this subject, especially the effects of the referendum upon political parties, see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II., 314-332.]

*481. The Inactivity of Parties.*—A second important fact respecting the parties of Switzerland is their all but total lack of organization and machinery. Parties are little more than groups of people who hold similar views upon public questions. Of office-seekers there are few, and of professional politicians fewer still. Elections are not infrequently uncontested, and only at rare intervals do they serve to awaken any considerable public enthusiasm. There are no campaign managers and funds, no platforms, no national committees, no elaborate systems of caucuses or conventions. Candidates for seats in the National Council are nominated by political gatherings in the several districts, but the proceedings are frequently of an all but purely non-partisan character. Political congresses are held occasionally, and a few political associations exist, but their activities are limited and comparatively unimportant. So far as there is party vigor at all, it is expended principally upon local issues and contests within the cantons.

Finally, it must be observed that the Swiss government is not a government by party at all. The Federal Council regularly includes members of more than one party, and there is no attempt to preserve in the body a homogeneous partisan character. Even in the legislative councils considerations of party are but incidental. Upon by no means all public issues are party lines drawn, and where they are drawn (p. 437) there is seldom that compactness and discipline of party to which legislative assemblies in other nations are accustomed. An evidence of the secondary importance of party demarcation is afforded by the fact that, instead of being arranged in groups according to party affiliations, the members of the National Council are so placed, as a rule, that all of the deputies of a canton occupy contiguous seats. The Federal Council, being elected by the Federal Assembly, is practically certain to reflect the preponderating political complexion of that body. But, in the entire absence of the parliamentary system, there is no essential reason why politically the executive and legislative organs should be in accord.[639]

[Footnote 639: On Swiss political parties see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II., Chap. 13; Adams and Cunningham, The Swiss Confederation, Chap. 7.]

V. THE JUDICIARY

*482. The Federal Court: Civil Jurisdiction.*—In respect to organization, the Swiss federal judiciary is very simple; in respect to functions, it is extremely complex. It comprises but a single tribunal, the Bundesgericht, or Federal Court. The court, created originally in 1848, consists to-day of sixteen judges and nine alternates, all chosen by the Federal Assembly for a term of six years. Any citizen eligible to the National Council may be elected to the Federal Court, but it is incumbent upon the Assembly to take care that all of the three officially recognized languages—German, French, and Italian—are represented. The president and vice-president of the court are designated by the Assembly, for a two years' term, but the court is authorized to organize its own secretariat and to appoint the officials thereof. Judges are forbidden to sit in either house of the federal legislature, to occupy any other office, or to engage in any alien pursuit or profession. Their yearly salary is 12,000 francs. The seat of the Court is Lausanne, in the French province of Vaud.

The jurisdiction of the Federal Court extends not only to ordinary civil and criminal cases but also to cases arising under public law. The competence of the tribunal in civil cases is very considerable. It extends to all suits between the Confederation and the cantons; between the Confederation and corporations or individuals, when such corporations or individuals appear as plaintiffs, and when the amount involved exceeds 3,000 francs; between cantons; and between cantons and corporations or individuals, upon request of the parties, and when the amount involved exceeds 3,000 francs. The constitution authorizes the Confederation to enlarge, by legislation, the competence of (p. 438) the Court,[640] and from time to time a variety of specific fields of civil jurisdiction have been opened to it, such as those of transportation and bankruptcy. In addition to original jurisdiction in all matters that have been named, the Court is required by the constitution to exercise appellate jurisdiction in cases carried on appeal, by mutual consent of the parties, from the cantonal courts. For the adjudication of civil cases the Court divides itself into two chambers of seven members each, presided over respectively by the president and vice-president.

[Footnote 640: Art. 114. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 287.]

*483. Criminal and Public Law Jurisdiction.*—The tribunal's criminal jurisdiction is less extensive. It covers, in the main, cases of high treason against the Confederation, crimes and misdemeanors against the law of nations, political crimes and misdemeanors of such seriousness as to occasion armed federal intervention, and charges against officers appointed by a federal authority, when such authority makes application to the Federal Court. In cases falling within any one of these categories the Court is required to employ a jury to decide questions of fact. With the consent of the Federal Assembly, criminal cases of other kinds may be referred to the Federal Court by the cantonal governments. For the trial of criminal cases the Court is divided each year into four chambers, each of three members, save the fourth and highest, the Kassationshof, or Court of Appeals, which has five. The Confederation is divided into three Assizenbezirke, or assize districts, and from time to time one of the criminal chambers sits in each.

Within the domain of public law the Court is given cognizance of conflicts of jurisdiction between federal and cantonal authorities, conflicts between cantons when arising out of questions of public law, complaints of violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, and complaints of individuals by reason of the violation of concordates or treaties. In actual operation, the range of powers which would appear thus to be conferred is much restricted by a clause which declares that "conflicts of administrative jurisdiction are reserved, and are to be settled in a manner prescribed by federal legislation."[641] Legislation in pursuance of this clause has withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Court a long list of possible subjects of litigation. Like European courts generally, the Swiss Federal Court possesses no power to determine the constitutionality of law, federal or cantonal. On the contrary, it is obligated to apply all law, by whatever proper authority enacted.[642]

[Footnote 641: Art. 112. Ibid., II., 286.]

[Footnote 642: On the Swiss federal judiciary see Vincent, Government in Switzerland, Chap. 15; Adams and Cunningham, The Swiss Confederation, Chap. 5.]

*484. The Civil Code.*—In 1898 the nation, through the means of (p. 439) a referendum, adopted the principle of the unification of all cantonal legal systems, civil and criminal, in a set of federal codes. Through more than a decade the task has been in progress, drafts being prepared by experts and submitted from time to time for criticism to special commissions and to public opinion. Early in 1908 the Assembly adopted an elaborate Civil Code which in this way had been worked out, and January 1, 1912, this monumental body of law was put in operation. By it many long established practices within the individual cantons were abolished or modified; but the humane and progressive character of the Code won for it such a measure of public approval that there was not even demand that the instrument be submitted to a referendum.



PART VI—AUSTRIA-HUNGARY (p. 441)



CHAPTER XXIV

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY PRIOR TO THE AUSGLEICH

*485. The Dual Monarchy.*—The dual monarchy Austria-Hungary, comprising a sixteenth of the area, and containing an eighth of the population, of all Europe, is an anomaly among nations. It consists, strictly, of two sovereign states, each of which has a governmental system all but complete within itself. One of these is known officially as "The Kingdoms and Lands represented in the Reichsrath," but more familiarly as Cisleithania, or the Empire of Austria. The other, officially designated as "The Lands of St. Stephen's Crown," is commonly called Transleithania, or the Kingdom of Hungary. By certain historical and political ties the two are bound together under the official name of the Oesterreichisch-ungarische Monarchie, or Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.[643] In the one the common sovereign is Emperor; in the other, Apostolic King.

[Footnote 643: This designation was first employed in a diploma of the Emperor Francis Joseph I., November 14, 1868 (see p. 459).]

"If," says a modern writer, "France has been a laboratory for political experiments, Austria-Hungary is a museum of political curiosities, but it contains nothing so extraordinary as the relation between Austria and Hungary themselves."[644] In its present form this relation rests upon the memorable Ausgleich, or Compromise, of 1867. The historical phases of it, however, may be traced to a period as remote as the first half of the sixteenth century, when, in 1526, after the Hungarians had suffered overwhelming defeat by the Turks at the Battle of Mohacs, a Hapsburg prince, the later Emperor Ferdinand I., assumed, upon election by the Hungarian diet, the throne of the demoralized eastern kingdom.[645] Until the eighteenth century the union of the two monarchies was always precarious, much of the time practically non-existent. Set in the midst of a whirlpool of races and political powers, the ancient Hungarian state, recovered from its days of disaster, struggled unremittingly to preserve its identity, and even to regain its independence, as against the overshadowing (p. 442) Imperial authority of which Austria was the seat. The effort was fairly successful and as late as the Napoleonic period Hungary, while bound to her western neighbor by a personal union through the crown, maintained not only her essential autonomy but even the constitutional style of government which had been hers since at least the early portion of the thirteenth century. A rapid sketch of the earlier political development of the two states seems a necessary introduction to an examination of the institutions, joint and separate, which to-day enter into the texture of their governmental organization.

[Footnote 644: Lowell, Governments and Parties, II., 177.]

[Footnote 645: See p. 448.]

I. AUSTRIAN POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT TO 1815

*486. Origins.*—The original Austria was a mark, or border county, lying along the south bank of the Danube, east of the river Enns, and founded by Charlemagne as a bulwark of the Frankish kingdom against the Slavs. During the ninth century the territory was overrun successively by the Moravians and the Magyars, or Hungarians, and all traces of Frankish occupation were swept away. At the middle of the tenth century, however, following Otto the Great's signal triumph over the Hungarians on the Lech in 955, the mark was reconstituted; and from that point the development of modern Austria is to be traced continuously. The name Oesterreich, i.e., "eastern empire" or "dominion," appears in a charter as early as 996.

The first notable period of Austrian history was that covered by the rule of the house of Babenberg. The government of the mark was intrusted by the Emperor Otto II. to Leopold of Babenberg in 976, and from that date to the extinction of the family in 1246 the energies of the Babenbergs were absorbed principally in the enlargement of the boundaries of their dominion and in the consolidation of its administration. In 1156 the mark was raised by King Frederick I. to the dignity of a duchy, and such were the privileges conferred upon it that the duke's only obligation consisted in the attending of any Imperial diet which should be held in Bavaria and the sending of a contingent to the Imperial army for such campaigns as should be undertaken in countries adjoining the duchy.

*487. The Establishment of Hapsburg Dominion, 1276.*—In 1251—five years after the death of the last Babenberg—the estates of the duchy elected as duke Ottakar, son of Wenceslaus I., king of Bohemia. In 1276, however, Duke Ottakar was compelled to yield his three dominions of Austria, Styria, and Carinthia to Rudolph of Hapsburg, who, in 1273, upon the breaking of the Interregnum, had become German king and emperor; and at this point began in Austria the rule of the (p. 443) illustrious Hapsburg dynasty of which the present Emperor Francis Joseph is a representative. Under the adroit management of Rudolph the center of gravity of Hapsburg power was shifted permanently from the Rhine to the Danube, and throughout the remainder of the Middle Ages the history of Austria is a story largely of the varying fortunes of the Hapsburg interests. In 1453 the duchy was raised to the rank of an archduchy, and later in the century the Emperor Maximilian I. entertained plans for the establishment of an Austrian electorate, or even an Austrian kingdom. These plans were not carried into execution, but the Austrian lands were constituted one of the Imperial circles which were created in 1512, and in 1518 representatives of the various Austrian Landtage, or diets, were gathered for the first time in national assembly at Innsbrueck.

*488. Austro-Hungarian Consolidation.*—In 1519 Maximilian I. was succeeded in the archduchy of Austria, as well as in the Imperial office, by his grandson Charles of Spain, known thenceforth as the Emperor Charles V. To his brother Ferdinand, however. Charles resigned the whole of his Austrian possessions, and to Austrian affairs he gave throughout his reign but scant attention. Ferdinand, in turn, devoted himself principally to warfare with the Turks and to an attempt to secure the sovereignty of Hungary. His efforts met with a measure of success and there resulted that affiliation of Austria and Hungary which, though varying greatly from period to period in strength and in effect, has been maintained to the present day. During a century succeeding Ferdinand's accession to the Imperial throne in 1556, the affairs of Austria were inextricably intertwined with those of the Empire, and it was only with the virtual disintegration of the Empire in consequence of the Thirty Years' War that the Hapsburg sovereigns fell back upon the policy of devoting themselves more immediately to the interests of their Austrian dominion.

The fruits of this policy were manifest during the long reign of Leopold I., who ruled in Austria from 1655 to 1705 and was likewise emperor during the last forty-eight years of this period. At the close of a prolonged series of Turkish wars, the Peace of Karlowitz, January 26, 1699, added definitely to the Austrian dominion Slavonia, Transylvania, and all Hungary save the banat of Temesvar, and thus completed the edifice of the Austrian monarchy.[646] The period was likewise one of internal consolidation. The Diet continued to be (p. 444) summoned from time to time, but the powers of the crown were augmented enormously, and it is to these years that scholars have traced the origins of that thoroughgoing bureaucratic regime which, assuming more definite form under Maria Theresa, continued unimpaired until the revolution of 1848. It was in the same period that the Austrian standing army was established.

[Footnote 646: At the diet of Pressburg, in 1687-1688, the Hungarian crown had been declared hereditary in the house of Hapsburg, and the Austrian heir, Joseph, had been crowned hereditary king. In 1697 Transylvania was united to the Hungarian monarchy. The banat of Temesvar was acquired by the Hapsburgs in 1718. The term "banat" denotes a border district, or march.]

*489. Development of Autocracy Under Maria Theresa, 1740-1780.*—The principal threads in Austrian history in the eighteenth century are the foreign entanglements, including the war of the Spanish Succession, the war of the Austrian Succession, and the Seven Years' War, and the internal measures, of reform and otherwise, undertaken by the successive sovereigns, especially Maria Theresa (1740-1780) and Joseph II. (1780-1790). For Austria the net result of the wars was the loss of territory and also of influence, among the states of the Empire, if not among those of all Europe. On the side of internal affairs it may be observed simply that Maria Theresa became virtually the founder of the unified Austrian state, and that, in social conditions generally, the reign of this sovereign marks more largely than that of any other the transition in the Hapsburg dominions from mediaeval to modern times. Unlike her doctrinaire son and successor, Joseph, Maria Theresa was of an eminently practical turn of mind. She introduced innovations, but she clothed them with the vestments of ancient institutions. She made the government more than ever autocratic, but she did not interfere with the nominal privileges of the old estates. In Hungary the constitution was left untouched, but during the forty years of the reign the Diet was assembled only four times, and government was, in effect, by royal decree. Joseph II. assumed the throne in 1780 bent primarily upon a policy of "reform from above." Utterly unacquainted with the actual condition of his dominions and unappreciative of the difficulties inherent in their administration, the new sovereign set about the sweeping away of the entire existing order and the substituting of a governmental scheme which was logical enough, to be sure, but entirely impracticable. The attempt, as was inevitable, failed utterly.

*490. Austria and France, 1789-1815.*—Leopold II. inherited, in 1790, a dominion substantially as it was at the death of Maria Theresa. Prior to his accession Leopold had acquired a reputation for liberalism, but apprehension aroused by the revolution in France was of itself sufficient to turn him promptly into the traditional paths of Austrian autocracy. His reign was brief (1790-1792), but that of his son and successor, Francis II., which continued through the revolutionary epoch, was essentially a continuation of it, and from first to (p. 445) last there was maintained with complete success that relentless policy of "stability" so conspicuously associated later with the name of Metternich. Hardly any portion of Europe was less affected by the ideas and transformations of the Revolution than was Austria.

Having resisted by every means at her disposal, including resort to arms, the progress of revolution, Austria set herself firmly, likewise, in opposition to the ambitions of Napoleon. Of the many consequences of the prolonged combat between Napoleon and the Hapsburg power, one only need be mentioned here. August 11, 1804, Francis II., archduke of Austria and emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, assumed the name and title of Francis I., emperor of Austria. To the taking of this step the Hapsburg monarch was influenced in part by Napoleon's assumption, three months previously, of the title of emperor of the French, and in part by anticipation that the Holy Roman Empire would soon be subverted completely by the conqueror. The apprehension proved well-founded. Within two years it was made known definitely that the Napoleonic plan of international readjustment involved as one of its principal features the termination, once for all, of an institution which, as Voltaire had already said, was "no longer holy, Roman, or an empire." August 6, 1806, the title and functions of Holy Roman Emperor were relinquished formally by the Austrian monarch. The Austrian imperial title of to-day, dates, however, from 1804.

II. HUNGARIAN POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT TO 1815

*491. Beginnings.*—According to accounts which are but indifferently reliable, the Magyars, or Hungarians, lately come as invaders from Asia, made their first appearance in the land which now bears their name in the year 895. Certain it is that during the first half of the tenth century they terrorized repeatedly the populations of Germany and France, until, in 955, their signal defeat at the Lechfeld by the German king (the later Emperor Otto I.) checked effectually their onslaughts and re-enforced the disposition already in evidence among them to take on a settled mode of life. In the second half of the tenth century they occupied definitely the valleys of the Danube and the Theiss, wedging apart, as do their descendants to this day, the Slavs of the north and those of the Balkan regions.

*492. Institutional Growth Under Stephen I., 997-1038.*—The principal formative period in the history of the Hungarian nation is the long reign of Stephen I., or, as he is more commonly known, St. Stephen. In this reign were established firmly both the Hungarian state and (p. 446) the Hungarian church; and in the organization of both Stephen exhibited a measure of capacity which entitles him to high rank among the constructive statesmen of mediaeval Europe. Under his predecessor the court had accepted Roman Christianity, but during his reign the nation itself was Christianized and the machinery of the Church was for the first time put effectively in operation. In the year 1001 Pope Sylvester II. accorded formal recognition to Magyar nationality by bestowing upon Prince Stephen a kingly crown, and to this day the joint sovereign of Austria-Hungary is inducted into office as Hungarian monarch with the identical crown which Pope Sylvester transmitted to the missionary-king nine centuries ago. In the elaboration of a governmental system King Stephen and the advisers whom he gathered from foreign lands had virtually a free field. The nation possessed a traditional right to elect its sovereign and to gather in public assembly, and these privileges were left untouched. None the less, the system that was set up was based upon a conception of royal power unimpaired by those feudal relationships by which in western countries monarchy was being reduced to its lowest estate. The old Magyar tribal system was abolished and as a basis of administration there was adopted the Frankish system of counties. The central and western portions of the country, being more settled, were divided into forty-six counties, at the head of each of which was placed a count, or lord-lieutenant (foeispan), appointed by the crown and authorized in turn to designate his subordinates, the castellan (varnagy), the chief captain (hadnagy), and the hundredor (szazados). This transplantation of institutions is a matter of permanent importance, for, as will appear, the county is still the basal unit of the Hungarian administrative system.

*493. The Golden Bull, 1222.*—During the century and a half which followed the reign of Stephen the consolidation of the kingdom, despite frequent conflicts with the Eastern Empire, was continued. The court took on something of the brilliancy of the Byzantine model, and in the later twelfth century King Bela III. inaugurated a policy—that of crowning as successor the sovereign's eldest son while yet the sovereign lived—by which were introduced in effect the twin principles of heredity and primogeniture. In 1222 King Andrew II. (1204-1235) promulgated a famous instrument, the Bulla Aurea, or Golden Bull, which has been likened many times to the Great Charter conceded to his barons by King John of England seven years earlier. The precise purport of the Golden Bull is somewhat doubtful. By some the instrument has been understood to have comprised a virtual surrender on the part of the crown in the interest of a class of (p. 447) insolent and self-seeking nobles with which the country was cursed. By others it has been interpreted as a measure designed to strengthen the crown by winning the support of the mass of the lesser nobles against the few greater ones.[647] The exemption of all nobles from taxation was confirmed; all were exempted likewise from arbitrary arrest and punishment. On the other hand, it was forbidden expressly that the titles and holdings of lords-lieutenant should become hereditary. The most reasonable conclusion is that the instrument represents a compromise designed to afford a working arrangement in a period of unusual stress between crown and nobility. Although the document was amplified in 1231 and its guarantees were placed under the special guardianship of the Church, it does not appear that its positive effects in the period immediately following were pronounced. The Golden Bull, none the less, has ever been regarded as the foundation of Hungarian constitutional liberty. As such, it was confirmed specifically in the coronation oath of every Hapsburg sovereign from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century.

[Footnote 647: J. Andrassy, Development of Hungarian Constitutional Liberty (London, 1908), 93.]

*494. Three Centuries of Constitutional Unsettlement.*—The last century of the Arpad dynasty, which was ended in 1308, was a period of depression and of revolution. The weakness of the later Arpads, the ruin wrought by the Tatar invasion of 1241-1242, the infiltration of feudalism, and perennial civil discord subverted the splendid monarchical establishment of King Stephen and brought the country into virtual subjection to a small body of avaricious nobles. The Arpads were succeeded by two Angevin princes from the kingdom of Naples—Charles I. (1310-1342) and Louis I. (1342-1382)—under whom notable progress was made toward the rehabilitation of the royal power. Yet in the midst of their reforms appeared the first foreshadowings of that great Turkish onslaught by which eventually the independent Hungarian monarchy was destined to be annihilated completely. The long reign of Sigismund (1387-1437) was occupied almost wholly in resistance to the Ottoman advance. So urgent did this sovereign deem the pushing of military preparations that he fell into the custom of summoning the Diet once, and not infrequently twice, a year, and this body acquired rapidly a bulk of legislative and fiscal authority which never before had been accorded it. Persons entitled to membership were regularly the nobles and higher clergy. But in 1397 the free and royal towns were invited to send deputies, and this privilege seems to have been given statutory confirmation. By the ripening of the Hungarian feudal system, however, and the (p. 448) struggles for the throne which followed the death of King Albert V. (1439), much that was accomplished by Sigismund and his diets was undone. Ultimately, measures of vigilance were renewed under John Hunyadi,—by voice of the Diet "governor" of Hungary, 1446-1456,—and, under his son King Matthias I. (1458-1490). During the last-mentioned reign fifteen diets are known to have been held, and no fewer than 450 statutes to have been enacted. The Hungarian common law was codified afresh and the entire governmental system overhauled. But again succeeded a period, from the accession of Wladislaus II. to the battle of Mohacs, during which turbulence reigned supreme and national spirit all but disappeared.

*496. The Establishment of Austrian Dominion.*—In 1526 the long expected blow fell. Under the Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent the Turks invaded the Hungarian kingdom and at the battle of Mohacs, August 28, put to rout the entire Hungarian army. The invading hosts chose to return almost instantly to Constantinople, but when they withdrew they left one-quarter of the Hungarian dominion in utter desolation. It was at this point, as has been stated, that the Hapsburg rulers of Austria first acquired the throne of Hungary. The death of King Louis at Mohacs was followed by the election of John Zapolya as king. But the archduke Ferdinand, whose wife, Anne, was a sister of Louis, laid claim to the throne and, in November, 1527, contrived to procure an election thereto at the hand of the Diet. In 1529 the deposed Zapolya was reinstated at Buda by the Sultan. The upshot was civil war, which was terminated in 1538 by a treaty under whose terms the kingdom was divided between the two claimants. Zapolya retained approximately two-thirds of the country, while to Ferdinand was conceded the remaining portion, comprising Croatia-Slavonia and the five westernmost counties. The government which Zapolya maintained at Buda had rather the better claim to be considered the continuation of the old Hungarian monarchy; but from 1527 onwards some portion of Hungary, and eventually the whole, was attached regularly to the Hapsburg crown.

In 1540 Zapolya died and the Diet at Buda elected as king his infant son John Sigismund. On the basis of earlier pledges Ferdinand laid claim to Zapolya's possessions, but the Sultan intervened and in 1547 there was worked out a three-fold division of the kingdom, on the principle of uti possedetis, under which thirty-five counties (including Croatia and Slavonia) were assigned to Ferdinand, Transylvania and sixteen adjacent counties were retained by John Sigismund, while the remaining portions of the kingdom were annexed to the dominions of the Sultan. With frequent modifications in detail, this three-fold division persisted through the next century and a (p. 449) half. The period was marked by frequent wars, by political confusion, and by the assumption on the part of the Hapsburg sovereigns of an increasingly autocratic attitude in relation to their Hungarian dependencies. It was brought to a close by the Peace of Karlowitz, January 26, 1699, whereby the Hapsburg dynasty acquired dominion over the whole of Hungary, except the banat of Tamesvar, which was acquired nineteen years later.

*496. Austrian Encroachment: the Pragmatic Sanction.*—The immediate effect of the termination of the Turkish wars was to enhance yet further the despotism of the Hapsburgs in Hungary. In 1687 the Emperor Leopold I. induced a rump diet at Pressburg to abrogate that clause of the Golden Bull which authorized armed resistance to unconstitutional acts of the sovereign, and likewise to declare the Hungarian crown hereditary in the house of Hapsburg. After upwards of seven hundred years of existence, the elective Hungarian monarchy was brought thus to an end. In 1715 King Charles III.[648] persuaded the Diet to consent to the establishment of a standing army, recruited and supported under regulation of the Diet but controlled by the Austrian council of war. By the diet of 1722 there was established a Hungarian court of chancery at Vienna and the government of Hungary was committed to a stadtholder at Pressburg who was made independent of the Diet and responsible to the sovereign alone. The diet of 1722 likewise accepted formally the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 by which the Emperor Charles settled the succession to his hereditary dominions, in default of male heirs, upon his daughter Maria Theresa and her heirs;[649] and in measures promulgated during the succeeding year the Emperor entered into a fresh compact with his Hungarian subjects which continued the basis of Hapsburg-Hungarian relations until 1848. On the one hand, Hungary was declared inseparable from the Hapsburg dominions, so long as there should be a legal heir; on the other, the crown was sworn to preserve the Hungarian constitution intact, with all the rights, privileges, laws, and customs of the kingdom. The net result of all of these measures, none the less, was to impair perceptibly the original autonomy of the Hungarian state.

[Footnote 648: Charles VI. as emperor.]

[Footnote 649: The Pragmatic Sanction was accepted at different dates by the various diets of the Austro-Hungarian lands: in 1713 by Croatia, and from 1720 to 1724 by the other diets. It was finally proclaimed a fundamental law in 1724.]

*497. The Later Eighteenth Century.*—Maria Theresa cherished a genuine interest in Hungarian affairs and was deeply solicitous concerning the welfare of her Hungarian subjects. It was never her intent, however, to encourage Hungarian self-government. The constitution of the (p. 450) kingdom was not subverted; it was simply ignored. The Diet was summoned but seldom, and after 1764 not at all. Reforms were introduced, especially in connection with education, but through the medium of royal decrees alone. Joseph II. continued nominally the policy of enlightened despotism, but in so tactless a manner that most of his projects were brought to nought. Approaching the problem of Hungarian administration with his accustomed idealism, he undertook deliberately to sweep away not only the constitution of the kingdom but the whole body of Hungarian institutions and traditions. He refused even to be crowned king of Hungary or to recognize in any manner the established status of the country. His purpose was clearly to build of Austria and Hungary one consolidated and absolute state—a purpose which, it need hardly be remarked, failed of realization. The statesmanship of Leopold II. averted the impending revolt. The constitution was restored, the ancient liberties of the kingdom were confirmed, and it was agreed that the Diet should be assembled regularly every three years. Through a quarter of a century the principal interest of Leopold's successor, Francis II. (1792-1835),[650] was the waging of war upon revolutionary France and upon Napoleon, and during this period circumstances conspired to cement more firmly the relations between the Hapsburg monarchy and the Hungarian people. In Hungary, as in Austria, the time was one of political stagnation. Prior to 1811 the Diet was several times convened, but never for any purpose other than that of obtaining war subsidies.

[Footnote 650: As emperor of Austria, Francis I. (1804-1835).]

III. THE ERA OF METTERNICH

In the thoroughgoing reaction which set in with the Congress of Vienna it fell to Austria to play the principal role. This was in part because the dominions of the Hapsburgs had emerged from the revolutionary epoch virtually unscathed, but rather more by reason of the remarkable position occupied during the period 1815-1848 by Emperor Francis I.'s minister and mentor, Prince Metternich. Easily the most commanding personality in Europe, Metternich was at the same time the moving spirit in international affairs and the autocrat of Austro-Hungarian politics. Within both spheres he was, as he declared himself to be, "the man of the status quo." Innovation he abhorred; immobility he glorified. The settlement at Vienna he regarded as essentially his own handiwork, and all that that settlement involved he proposed to safeguard relentlessly. Throughout a full generation he contrived, with consummate skill, to dam the stream of liberalism in more than half of Europe.

*498. Condition of the Monarchy in 1815.*—In the dominions of the (p. 451) Hapsburgs the situation was peculiarly such as to render all change, from the point of view of Metternich, revolutionary and ruinous. In respect to territory and prestige Austria emerged from the Napoleonic wars with a distinctly improved status. But the internal condition of the monarchy, now as ever, imparted a forbidding aspect to any policy or movement which should give promise of unsettling in the minutest degree the delicate, haphazard balance that had been arrived at among the multiplicity of races, religions, and interests represented in the Emperor's dominions. In the west were the duchies, essentially German, which comprised the ancestral possessions of the Hapsburg dynasty; in the north was Bohemia, comprising, besides Bohemia proper, Silesia, and Moravia, and containing a population largely Czech; to the south lay the lately acquired Italian kingdom of Lombardo-Venetia; to the east lay the kingdom of Hungary, including the kingdom of Croatia and the principality of Transylvania, with a population preponderantly Slavic but dominated politically by the Magyars. Several of these component states retained privileges which were peculiar to themselves and were bound to the Hapsburg monarchy by ties that were at best precarious. And the differences everywhere of race, religion, language, tradition, and interest were such as to create for the Vienna Government a seemingly impossible task.

So decadent and ineffective was the Austrian administrative system when Metternich entered, in 1809, upon his ministry that not even he could have supposed that change would not eventually have to come. Change, however, he dreaded, because when change begins it is not possible to foresee how far it will go, or to control altogether the course it shall follow. Change, therefore, Metternich resisted by every available means, putting off at least as long as might be the evil day. The spirit of liberalism, once disseminated throughout the conglomerate Empire, might be expected to prompt the various nationalities to demand constitutions; constitutions would mean autonomy; and autonomy might well mean the end of the Empire itself. Austria entered upon the post-Napoleonic period handicapped by the fact that the principle upon which Europe during the nineteenth century was to solve many of her problems—the principle of nationality—contained for her nought but the menace of disintegration. Conservatism, as one writer has put it, was imposed upon the Empire by the very conditions of its being.

*499. Metternich's System: the Rise of Liberalism.*—The key to Austrian history during the period 1815—1848 is, then, the maxim of the Emperor Francis, "Govern and change nothing." In Hungary government was nominally constitutional; elsewhere it was frankly absolute. (p. 452) The diets of the component parts of the Empire were not abolished, nor were the estates of the several Austrian provinces. But, constituted as they generally were on an aristocratic basis and convened but irregularly and for brief periods, their existence was a source neither of embarrassment to the Government nor of benefit to the people. "I also have my Estates," declared the Emperor upon one occasion. "I have maintained their constitution, and do not worry them; but if they go too far I snap my fingers at them or send them home." The Diet of Hungary was not once convened during the years 1812-1825. On the side of administration Metternich did propose that the various executive departments, hitherto gathered under no common management nor correlated in any degree whatsoever, should be brought under the supervision of a single minister. But not even this project was carried out effectively. Throughout the period the central government continued cumbersome, disjointed, and inefficient.

With every passing decade the difficulties of the Government were augmented. Despite a most extraordinary censorship of education and of the press, western liberalism crept slowly into the Empire and the spirit of disaffection laid hold of increasing numbers of people. The revolutions of 1820 passed without eliciting response; those of 1830 occasioned but a ripple. But during the decade 1830-1840, and especially after 1840, the growth of liberalism was rapid. In 1835 the aged Francis I. was succeeded by Ferdinand I., but as the new sovereign was mentally incapacitated the dominance of Metternich continued unimpaired.[651] In Bohemia, Hungary, and elsewhere there were revivals of racial enthusiasm and of nationalistic aspirations which grew increasingly ominous. The Hungarian diet of 1844 substituted as the official language of the chambers Magyar for Latin, and during the forties there was built up, under the leadership of Louis Kossuth and Francis Deak, a flourishing Liberal party, whose aim was the re-establishment of the autonomy of the kingdom and the thoroughgoing reform of the government. By 1847-1848 this party was insisting strenuously upon the adoption of its "Ten Points," in which were included a responsible ministry, the abolition of serfdom, equality of citizens before the law, complete religious liberty, fuller representation in the Diet, taxation of the nobles, and (p. 453) control by the Diet of all public expenditures.[652]

[Footnote 651: Technically the control of the government was vested in a small group of dignitaries known as the Staatskonferenz, or State Conference. The nominal president of this body was the Archduke Louis, representing the crown; but the actual direction of its proceedings fell to Metternich. H. von Sybel, Die Oesterreichische Staatskonferenz von 1836, in Historische Zeitschrift, 1877.]

[Footnote 652: On Austria during the period of Metternich see Cambridge Modern History, X., Chap. 11, XI., Chap. 3; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Generale, X., Chap. 17; A. Stern, Geschichte Europas (Berlin, 1904-1911), I., Chap. 3; A. Springer, Geschichte Oesterreichs seit dem Wiener Frieden 1809 (Leipzig, 1863), I., 275-322; H. Meynert, Kaiser Franz I. (Vienna, 1872).]

IV. THE REVOLUTION OF 1848

*500. The Fall of Metternich.*—The crash came in 1848. Under the electrifying effect of the news of the fall of Louis Philippe at Paris (February 24), and of the eloquent fulminations of Kossuth, translated into German and scattered broadcast in the Austrian capital, there broke out at Vienna, March 12-13, an insurrection which instantly got quite beyond the Government's power to control. Hard fighting took place between the troops and the populace, and an infuriated mob, breaking into the royal palace, called with an insistence that would not be denied for the dismissal of Metternich. Recognizing the uselessness of resistance, the minister placed in the hands of the Emperor his resignation and, effecting an escape from the city, made his way out of the country and eventually to England. March 15 there was issued a hurriedly devised Imperial proclamation, designed to appease the populace, in which was promised the convocation of an assembly with a view to the drafting of a national constitution.

*501. Hungary: the March Laws.*—On the same day the Diet of Hungary, impelled by the oratory of Kossuth, began the enactment of an elaborate series of measures—the so-called March Laws—by which was carried rapidly toward completion a programme of modernization which, in the teeth of Austrian opposition, had been during some years under way. The March Laws fell into two principal categories. The first dealt with the internal government of the kingdom, the second with the relations which henceforth were to subsist between Hungary and the Austrian Empire. For the ancient aristocratic machinery of the monarchy was substituted a modern constitutional system of government, with a diet whose lower chamber, of 337 members, was to be elected by all Hungarians of the age of twenty who possessed property to the value of approximately $150. Meetings of this diet were to be annual and were to be held, no longer at Pressburg, near the Austrian border, but at the interior city of Budapest, the logical capital of the kingdom. Taxation was extended to all classes; feudal servitudes and titles payable by the peasantry were abolished; trial by jury, religious liberty, and freedom of the press were guaranteed. In the second place, it was stipulated that henceforth Hungary should (p. 454) have an entirely separate and a responsible ministry, thus ensuring the essential autonomy of the kingdom. The sole tie remaining between the two monarchies was to be the person of the sovereign. Impelled by the force of circumstances, the Government at Vienna designated Count Louis Batthyany premier of the first responsible Hungarian ministry and, April 10, accorded reluctant assent to the March Laws. These statutes, though later subverted, became thenceforth the Grundrechte of the Hungarian people.

*502. The Austrian Constitution of 1848.*—In the meantime, the Austrians were pressing their demand for constitutionalism. The framing of the instrument which had been promised was intrusted by the Emperor to the ministers, and early in April there was submitted to an informal gathering of thirty notables representing various portions of the Empire a draft based upon the Belgium constitution of 1831. This instrument was given some consideration in several of the provincial diets, but was never submitted, as it had been promised in the manifesto of March 15 it should be, to the Imperial Diet, or to any sort of national assembly. Instead it was promulgated, April 25, on the sole authority of the Emperor. The territories to which it was made applicable comprised the whole of the Emperor's dominions, save Hungary and the other Transleithanian lands and the Italian dependencies. By it the Empire was declared an indissoluble constitutional monarchy, and to all citizens were extended full rights of civil and religious liberty. There was instituted a Reichstag, or general diet, to consist of an upper house of princes of the royal family and nominees of the landlords, and a lower of 383 members, to be elected according to a system to be devised by the Reichstag itself. All ministers were to be responsible to this diet. July 22 there was convened at Vienna the first assembly of the new type, and the organization of constitutional government was put definitely under way.

*503. The Reaction.*—Recovery, however, on the part of the forces of reaction was rapid. In Hungary the same sort of nationalistic feeling that had inspired the Magyars to assert their rights as against Austria inspired the Serbs, the Croats, and the Roumanians to demand from the Magyar Government a recognition of their several traditions and interests. The purpose of the Magyars, however, was to maintain absolutely their own ascendancy in the kingdom, and every demand on the part of the subject nationalities met only with contemptuous refusal. Dissatisfaction bred dissension, and dissension broke speedily into civil war. With consummate skill the situation was exploited by the Vienna Government, while at the same time the armies of Radetzky and Windischgraetz were stamping out every trace of (p. 455) insurrection in Lombardo-Venetia, in Bohemia, and eventually in Vienna itself. December 2, 1848, the easy-going, incompetent Emperor Ferdinand was induced by the reactionaries to abdicate. His brother, Francis Charles, the heir-presumptive, renounced his claim to the throne, and the crown devolved upon the late Emperor's youthful nephew, Francis Joseph I., whose phenomenally prolonged reign has continued to the present day. Under the guidance of Schwarzenberg, who now became the dominating figure in Austrian politics, the Hungarian March Laws were abrogated and preparations were set on foot to reduce Hungary, as other portions of the Imperial dominions had been reduced, by force of arms. Pronouncing Francis Joseph a usurper, the Magyars rose en masse in defense of their constitution and of the deposed Ferdinand. In the conflict which ensued they were compelled to fight not only the Austrians but also their rebellious Roumanian, Croatian, and Slavonian subjects, and their chances of success were from the outset slender. In a moment of exultation, April 14, 1849, the Diet at Budapest went so far as to declare Hungary an independent nation and to elect Kossuth to the presidency of a supposititious republic. The only effect, however, was to impart to the contest an international character. Upon appeal from Francis Joseph, Tsar Nicholas I. intervened in behalf of the "legitimate" Austrian power; whereupon the Hungarians, seeking in vain for allies, were overcome by the weight of the odds against them, and by the middle of August, 1849, the war was ended.

*504. Restoration of Autocracy.*—In Austria and Hungary alike the reaction was complete. In the Empire there had been promulgated, March 4, 1849, a revised constitution; but at no time had it been intended by the sovereign or by those who surrounded him that constitutionalism should be established upon a permanent basis, and during 1850-1851 one step after another was taken in the direction of the revival of autocracy. December 31, 1851, "in the name of the unity of the Empire and of monarchical principles," the constitution was revoked by Imperial patent. At a stroke all of the peoples of the Empire were deprived of their representative rights. Yet so incompletely had the liberal regime struck root that its passing occasioned scarcely a murmur. Except that the abolition of feudal obligations was permanent, the Empire settled back into a status which was almost precisely that of the age of Metternich. Vienna became once more the seat of a government whose fundamental objects may be summarized as (1) to Germanize the Magyars and Slavs, (2) to restrain all agitation in behalf of constitutionalism; and (3) to prevent freedom of thought and the establishment of a free press. Hungary, by reason of her (p. 456) rebellion, was considered to have forfeited utterly the fundamental rights which for centuries had been more or less grudgingly conceded her. She not only lost every vestige of her constitutional system, her diet, her county assemblies, her local self-government; large territories were stripped from her, and she was herself cut into five districts, each to be administered separately, largely by German officials from Vienna. So far as possible, all traces of her historic nationality were obliterated.[653]

[Footnote 653: Brief accounts of the revolution of 1848-1849 in Austria-Hungary will be found in Cambridge Modern History, XI., Chaps. 6-7 (bibliography, pp. 887-893), and Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Generale, XI., Chap. 4. The most important treatise is H. Friedjung, Oesterreich von 1848 bis 1860 (2d ed., Stuttgart and Berlin, 1908), the first volume of which covers the period 1848-1851. There is a serviceable account in L. Leger, History of Austria-Hungary from the Beginning to the Year 1878, trans. by B. Hill (London, 1889), Chaps. 30-33. Older accounts in English include W. H. Stiles, Austria in 1848-9 (New York, 1852), and W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria (3d ed., London, 1907). The Hungarian phases of the subject are admirably presented in L. Eisenmann, Le compromis austro-hongroise (Paris, 1904).]

V. THE REVIVAL OF CONSTITUTIONALISM: THE AUSGLEICH

*505. Constitutional Experiments, 1860-1861.*—The decade 1850-1860 was in Austria-Hungary a period of political and intellectual torpor. Embarrassed by fiscal difficulties and by international complications, the Government at Vienna struggled with desperation to maintain the status quo as against the numerous forces that would have overthrown it. For a time the effort was successful, but toward the close of the decade a swift decline of Imperial prestige compelled the adoption of a more conciliatory policy. The Crimean War cost the Empire both allies and friends, and the disasters of the Italian campaigns of 1859 added to the seriousness of the Imperial position. By 1860 both the Emperor and his principal minister, Goluchowski, were prepared to undertake in all sincerity a reformation of the illiberal and unpopular governmental system. To this end the Emperor called together, March 5, 1860, representatives of the various provinces and instructed them, in conjunction with the Reichsrath, or Imperial Council, to take under consideration plans for the reorganization of the Empire. The majority of this "reinforced Reichsrath" recommended the establishment permanently of a broadly national Reichsrath, or Imperial assembly, together with the reconstitution of the old provincial diets. The upshot was the promulgation, October 20, 1860, of a "permanent and irrevocable" diploma in which the Emperor made known his intention thereafter to share all powers of legislation and finance with the diets of the various portions of the Empire, and (p. 457) with a central Reichsrath at Vienna, the latter to be made up of members chosen by the Emperor from triple lists of nominees presented by the provincial diets.

In Hungary this programme was received with favor by the conservative magnates, but the Liberals, led by Deak, refused absolutely to approve it, save on the condition that the constitutional regime of the kingdom, abrogated in 1849, should be regarded as completely restored. At Vienna there had been no intention that the proposed innovation should entail such consequences, and within four months of its promulgation the diploma of 1860 was superseded by a patent of February 26, 1861, whereby the terms demanded by the Deak party were specifically denied. In this patent—the handiwork principally of Anton von Schmerling, Goluchowski's successor in the office of Minister of the Interior—was elaborated further the plan of the new Reichsrath. Two chambers there were to be—an upper, or House of Lords, to be made up of members appointed by the Emperor in consideration of birth, station, or merits and a lower, or House of Representatives, to consist of 343 members (Hungary sending 85 and Bohemia 54), to be chosen by the provincial diets from their own membership. Sessions of the body were to be annual. The new instrument differed fundamentally from the old, not simply in that it substituted a bicameral for a unicameral parliamentary body, but also in that it diverted from the local diets to the Reichsrath a wide range of powers, being designed, indeed, specifically to facilitate the centralization of governmental authority.