The daily national Whig. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1847-1849, 1849-04-02
TME HUNGARIAN WAR.

The following statement by former mem
Der Of the Hungarian Government, and
prominent actor in the movements Of the
past year in that country, presents q clear
view Of the origin and nature Of the war
The, struggle which still continues on
tie banks Of the Danube and the Thesis
every day attracts more attention to the po-
sition and affairs Of Hungary, but public
opinion as To the character Of this struggle
is formed from imperfect information, and
from impressions which induce false conclu-
sions. Il is in the interest Of Hungary, and
il is my special duty, as my name has been
mixed III, with some OF these events, to make
known the precise feature Of the movement
in, Hungary. II is represented as an episode
to the revolutionary drama Of the year ls4S,
by seeking to unite il closely with the pop
ular instruction Of Vienna. This is sup
position utterly unfounded, against which it
i our duty to protest. The events which
have taken place in Hungary have not the
slightest relation with the revolution in Ger
many.
II is true that many important changes
have taken place in Hungary, as regards
ideas and institutions. We have abolished
corvees and ninths, and the clergy and no
bility have renowned all their ancient feudal
privileges; the liberty Of the press, oil edu-
cation, and public worship have been estab-
lshed All that France obtained by her
FIRST revolution, we have obtained by reform.
sanctioned by our Parliament. 1t was not
in the streets, but in our Chamber Of Depu-
ties and Magnates, that liberal principles tri-
umphed Our movement did not proceed
from the effects Of revolution-it was the
result Of protracted parliamentary conflict
between the Representatives Of Hungary
CONSTITUTIONAL and the Austrian Cabinet,
always absolute. The position Of Hungary
with respect to the Austrian Government
was essentially changed by the revolution Of
the 18th Of March, which rendered Austria 5
a Constitutional Monarchy; from this time
Hungary required fresh guarantees for the
defence Of her nationality, which consists not
in the unity Of language, but in the identity
Of interests, the similitude Of institutions, and
all those relations created by eight centu-
ries Of common history between the different
races Of which she is composed.
True to her ancient traditions, to her laws,
to her history, Hungary believed that the
reconstruction Of the Austrian Empire be-
come necessary in consequence Of the revolu-
tion Of Vienna, could only take place upon
the basis of close federal alliance between
Hungary and the Hereditary Province.
The basis was accepted by the sovereign.
On the 18th Of April, the Emperor King,
surrounded by his family, and accompanied
by his brother, the Archduke Francis Charles
and his nephew, the Archduke Francis Jo-
seph (now the relying Emperor Of Austria,
went from Vienna to Presburg, for the pur-
pose Of giving his solemn sanction to the
law establishing in Hungary a Ministerial
Government. But after the victory Of Gus
tozza and the taking Of Milan, the policy Of
Austria changed. 1t was no longer the fed
erai principle, but that Of the absolute unity
Of the Empire, and Of fusion OF all the Pro-
vinces divided into small Departments that
the Ministry of Vienna adopted. They
openly declared that the law Of the 18th Of
April was not in accordance with the unity
Of the Empire, and the sword of the Ban,
Jallachich served as support to this decla-
ration. War was forced upon US we ac-
cepted it, ready to defend the independence
Of Hungary, guaranteed for three centuriesby
the paths Of fourteen kings, without having
any idea, either then or now, Of separation
from the. House Of Austria. The reports Of
the resolutions Of the Hungarian Diet against
the historic rights Of the House Of Austria
are completely unfounded in fact. The
Clergy and the old Conservatives, as well as
the Liberals, rallied round the standard rais-
ed in support Of the integrity Of the crown
Of Hungary, threatened by the Austrian
Ministry; they forgot their former differ
ences in their fixed determination TO sustain
the independence Of their country, in con-
formity with its fundamental laws.
At Vienna, on the contrary, where liber-
ty had as yet no historic basis, il was revo-
lutionary ideas which stirred up the people.
In reality, the Viennese being convinced
that IL the law Of the 18th Of April was
questioned in Hungary, the concessions Of
March and Of May had no longer any guar
anty in Austria; this conviction connected in
some degree the events Of Vienna and those
Of Hungary. But this coincidence Of inter-
ests, Independent Of the will of individuals,
admits Of a more easy explanation than the
coalition in the Parliament Of Frankfort,
between the Austrian deputies and the ex-
IRENE republican LEFT. The Hungarians
never took any part in the affairs Of the Ger
man democracy. The leaders Of the parties
at Pesth and Vienna were perfect strangers
I to each other; notwithstanding the union Of
interests which existed between their causes,
the causes themselves were completely DIFF
ferent as to their object, and opposed as TO
their means. What in Vienna was the tri-
nnph Of the Democracy, by means Of insur-
rection, was in Hungary the defence Of the
integrity Of the country by the legal author
tiles, reluctantly driven to war.
The party who advocated the unity Of the
empire, purposely confounded these two
movements; il imputed the events Of the 9th
Of October, at Vienna, to the Hungarian
Government; it has spoken Of workmen ex-
cited to instruction, Of sums Of money dis
tributed by the members and apents t,f The