The Sun.
London, England, 1861-08-26 00:00:00

AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY.

The Emperor of Anstria, having closed the mouth
of the Diet of Hungary, has next determined to
tell his own story to the Reichsrath. Now that there
is no M.Deak, as the organ of the hostile Parliament,
to reply to him, the task has been an easy one. But
we cannot allow the distortions of fact and of reason-
ing which characterise the Emperor's message to the
two Houses of the Reichsrath to pass unchallenged,
although:we are content to refer to them to the na-
tural obliquities of the imperial understanding ra-
ther than to deliberate insincerity. It must however
be acknowledged, that a more unfortunate State
paper never emanated from a thwarted and defeated
Government.' Let us consider the manifesto now
issued by the Austrian Court, proposition by pro•
position. The Empercr begins by vehemently re-
proaching the Hungarian Diet for ingratitudein not
accepting his concession of the 20th of October last,
which reinstituted the Diet; but with this all-im-
portant distinction, that it was established in subor-
dination to the Reichsrath--a sort of central Par-
liament hitherto unknown to the Austrian empire.
He then felicitates himself upon his clemency in
thus throwing a veil over what he terms the " crime"
of the 14th of April, 1849, when the Diet, assem-
bled at Debreczin, formally deposed the Austrian
dynasty, " in violation of the pragmatic sanction."
Francis Joseph thus appeals to the pragmatic
sanction as the basis of the reciprocal relations of
the Diet and the Sovereign, recognising it, there-
fore, as the exponent of the rights of the Diet, as
well as of his own. Now, it unfortunately happens
for the Emperor that it is to this very pragmatic
sanction that the Hungarian Diet have appealed in
opposition to the innovations and to the arbitrary
conduct of the Government of Austria. That cele-
brated convention based the title of the House of
Hapsburg to rule in Hungary upon the mainte-
nance of the supreme legislative authority of the
Diet, which is at this moment the very position in
dispute. Yet the Emperor of Austria now comes
forward to assert the authority of a charter, the
provisions of which, if recognised, are certainly
conclusive in favour of all the legislative preten-
sions of the Hungarians.
But the Emperor proceeds to inform the Reichs-
rath that he has revived the Hungarian Diet in all
its independence and its privileges, though subject
to two conditions—that the army and the finances
shall be questions to be legislated for by the
Reichsrath jointly with the Diet. This means,
we suppose, though it is neither a clear nor a
fair mode of putting it, that the eighty-five dele-
gates from the Diet, which the constitution of
the 20th of October supposes to be forming a
deliberative portion of the Reichsrath, are to exer-
cise their votes jointly with the two hundred and
forty members from other portions of the empire.
Now, what does the Austrian Government mean
by asserting that it has revived the Diet of Hun-
gary "in all its independence," subject "only to
two conditions," which it glosses over as insig-
nificant qualifications of independence, when it
must know perfectly well that theSe "two condi-
tions" relate to the two very questions which have
always been the main subject of dispute,between
Kings and Parliaments? The taxation and mili-
tary establishments of a country, insignificant ques-
tions excepted from its general independence! Why,
what is acknowledged to be the first test of the
freedom and authority of any House of Commons
but its right to regulate its own taxation and ex-
penditure ? What is acknowledged to be the se-
cond test, and which is largely dependent on the
former, but its right to control the numbers, the
levying, and the recruiting of the army ? These
two privileges of a Parliament gone, and every-
thing is gone. It may be politic, or it may not, to
fuse the whole legislative authority of an empire
into one assembly where it is practicable to do so ;
but an artificial and composite empire like the
Austrian, which has long subsisted upon compact,
and not upon national affinity, requires a different
mode of treatment to a naturally homogeneous em-
pire • and it is very certain that if the Emperor, in
October last, gave the Hungarians reason to under-
stand (what he now tells the Reichsrath) that he
would re-establish their independence, subject only
to two conditions, they had good right to resent the
breach of faith of which they have complained.
Perhaps, however, the most remarkable piece of
autocratic reasoning contained in the imperial
message is the argument put forward in justifica-
tion of these two restrictions upon Hungarian free-
dom. The Emperor gravely asserts that he was
" authorised" in imposing them by the fact of " the
ancient constitution of Hungary having been over-
thrown by a revolutionary Power." Here is a direct
recognition, on the part of the Austrian Kaiser him-
self, of revolutionary authority. But surely, if re•
volutionary edicts were to be pleaded in bar of
ancient rights, those edicts must be quite as subver-
sive of monarchial rights as of popular legislative
rights. It seems to us, therefore, that if the ancient
Hungarian constitution vanishes in consequence
of a revolutionary edict, the ancient Hungarian
monarchy must vanish with it. This is a plain
logical deduction, quite obvious, and indeed irresis-
tible. What place, therefore, has King Francis
Joseph in the Hungarian question at all? Yet he
solicits election and coronation as the successor of
Ferdinand. With hardly less inconsistency, he
alleges that he has dissolved the Diet because it
broke off all negotiation with him. We confess
we hardly see how the one party can be said
to have done this any more than the other.
Neither side were willing to give way ; and if
from this fact is to be elicited a breaking off
of negotiation, it seems to come from the
Sovereign who dissolved the Diet. In the same
breath the Emperor declares his resolution through-
out to adopt constitutional principles. This is an
abuse of terms; for when he establishes a consti-
tution which his subjects will not concur in, he as
much as says, "I am the constitution." A consti-
tution is, properly speaking, anything constituted;
and though, in the jargon of the day, a phrase for
a free government, it is certainly, in the vocabulary
of the Emperor of Austria, nothing but a reflection
of his own will. From this unsatisfactory state-

ment we turn with some hope to the announce-
ment that " the new Diet will be convened as soon
as possible." If the Emperor shall here redeem his
pledge, he has yet another chance left; let him but
meet the forthcoming Diet in a conciliatory tem-
per, and he will find reciprocal conciliation enough
in the generous character of the Hungarians.—
Morning Post.