inhabitants to raise arbitrary taxes, and in fine, ruling the country by brute force? Yet, unless morality and law vary in their principles under different skies, the same damnatory verdict which every Englishman as readily as every Scotchman will pass on the bare idea of such lawless iniquity, must be recorded against the actual perpetrator of as foul a wrong -the throned anarchist who tramples on the legal rights of Hungary.

But we should not do justice to the Hungarian Diet, nor fulfil our purpose of laying before our readers convincing proof of the justice of their cause, if we did not quote some passages from the two remarkable addresses which, during their brief session of 1861, they sent up to the Emperor of Austria. In temper and dignity, in the calm eloquence which a sense of right inspires, in lucidity of statement, close reasoning, and thorough acquaintance with ancient precedents as well as the principles of law, these documents surpass anything of the kind that has been published since the days of the Grand Remonstrance. The civil heroes whose struggles and greatness have been brought before us so vividly by Mr. Forster, are equalled by Deak and other Hungarian patriots, in learning, firmness, and moderation. When it was apparent from the Diploma issued by the Emperor, and the speech of the Imperial Commissioner in opening the Diet, that the design was to deprive Hungary of her ancient right of self-government, it was determined to oppose a resolute resistance to the attempted usurpation. The more vehement party in the Diet were indeed anxious to deny the right of the Emperor to the crown of Hungary, as he had violated the law by postponing his coronation beyond the six months allowed by statute; but the moderate party, led by Deak, one of the most remarkable men in Europe, succeeded in carrying the address to his "Imperial Royal Majesty." It commenced with an eloquent reference to the twelve years of oppression which the nation had endured, pointed out the many illegalities which still subsisted in the government, and then went on to show how impossible

it was for the Diet to assent to the plan announced in the Emperor's Diploma.

"This Diploma would rob Hungary for ever of the ancient provisions of her constitution, which subject all questions concerning public taxation and the levying of troops, throughout their whole extent, solely to her own Diet; it would deprive the nation of the right of passing, in concurrence with the King, its own laws on subjects affecting the most important material interests of the land. All matters relating to money, credit, the military establishment, customs and commerce of Hungary-these essential questions of a political national existence-are placed under the control of a general Council of the Empire, a body the majority of whom would be foreigners. There these subjects would be discussed from other than Hungarian points of view, with regard to other than Hungarian interest. Nor is this all; in the field of Administration this Diploma makes the Hungarian Government dependent on the Austrian-on a Government which is not even responsible; and which, in the event of its becoming so, would render an account, not to Hungary, but to the Council of the Empire, which would give no guarantee for our interests, where they should come into collision with those of Austria.

1

"Were this idea to be legalized, Hungary must cease both in legislation and administration to be independent; her most essential interests would be subject to the legislation and administration of the Austrian Empire; in a word, she would remain Hungary only in name, whilst in reality she would become an Austrian province."

The address then sets out the nature and provisions of the Pragmatic Sanction, a "bilateral, fundamental State-compact," a "Deed of Contract," between the Crown and nation of Hungary, "by which, on the one hand, our ancestors solemnly renounced, in favour of the female descendants of the House of Hapsburg, their rights to proceed to the free election of a king," and "on the other hand, Charles III., in consideration of the aforesaid surrender, covenanted for the fulfilment of the conditions for which the nation stipulated, namely, for the preservation of the independence of the country, of its rights, liberties, and laws." The history of the dealing of subsequent sovereigns with Hungary is recited, and, among others, the Act of 1790, by which Leopold II :

"Acknowledged and declared that, although by virtue of the 1st and 2nd Acts of 1723, which extended the right of succession to

the female line, the crown of Hungary would always devolve on the sovereign who possessed, according to the established order of succession, the other Hereditary States; yet Hungary, with its annexed parts, was notwithstanding a free kingdom, in the entire administration of its laws independent; that it was therefore not subservient or dependent on any other empire or people, but possessed its own constitution and administration, and was to be governed not in the manner of the other provinces, but by its rightfully crowned king, in accordance with its own laws and customs.'

The question of the nature of the union between Hungary and the Hereditary States of the Austrian Empire is argued with striking acuteness and research; the tie is shown to be strictly personal; and then the Diet, in the following paragraph, give their main reason, to us we confess conclusive, why it would be impossible for Hungary to consent to a fusion with Austria and to a common Parliament at Vienna :

"At present the Hereditary States are members of the German Confederation. Towards it they have obligations to perform involving burdens to support; the decisions of the Confederate League have binding force on all the states belonging to the Confederation. On the other hand, Hungary is not a member of the German Confederation; the German interests, which the Austrian provinces are bound to protect and further, are for us foreign interests. The power of the Confederation, which, in the Austrian provinces, possesses, in some points, binding authority, is to us entirely foreign. Germany may carry on a war in its own interests, or its frontier may be attacked; Austria may be compelled to take part in such a war, and to join in defending the menaced frontier; but their war is not our war, their interests not our interests; they will not assist us in our battles, or aid us to repulse an attack on our frontier, for we are not members of the Confederation. Is it possible that countries politically so differently situated should be connected more closely than by a personal union? What surety should we possess that in a Council of the Empire, whose overwhelming majority is bound to the German Confederation, in accordance with the essential principles of the League,— that, in such a council, where our interests were not identical with those of the Confederation, our rights would be respected, and our interests spared? A closer union would place us under the control of an Austrian majority, it would make us dependent on an entirely foreign policy,-that of the German League, whilst we could claim no corresponding services in return.

Having adduced the instance of Sweden and Norway subsisting side by side in amity, but by a simple personal union, and having expressed their loyal desire to share equitably the burdens of the empire, even in this respect "to go beyond what strict legal obligation would require," the Diet thus firmly repudiate consent to any sacrifice of national independence :

"We therefore hold it necessary solemnly to declare that we can sacrifice to no considerations and to no interests of whatsoever kind the constitutional and legal independence of our land, which has been guaranteed to us by a fundamental State-compact, by statutes, by royal inaugural diplomas, and by coronation oaths, that we shall cling to it as the essential condition of our national existence. Hence, we cannot consent to the withdrawal from the province of the Hungarian Diet of the right to decide all and every matter concerning public taxation, and the raising of military forces. As we entertain no wish to exercise the right of legislation over any other country, so we can divide with none but the King the right of legislation over Hungary; we can make the Government and Administration of Hungary depend on none other than its King, and cannot unite the same with the Government of any other lands; therefore we declare that we will take part neither in the Council of the Empire, nor in any other assembly whatsoever of the representatives of the Empire; and further, that we cannot recognise the right of the said Council of the Empire to legislate on the affairs of Hungary, and are only prepared to enter on special occasions into deliberation with the constitutional peoples of the Hereditary States as one independent nation with another."

The Diet proceed to complain of the non-completion of their members, the writs having been withheld from the annexed provinces of Hungary, such as Transylvania, Croatia, Slavonia, a course directly in contravention of the ancient constitution, and opposed to the express duties of the Crown; and they record their resolution not to pass any laws, or negotiate for the coronation, until their body has been made complete. They also point out the continued suspension of some of the fundamental laws of the constitution; "we have no parliamentary government, no responsible ministry. Our laws regulating the press, and the trial by jury in connexion with it, have not been restored. In opposition to distinct enact

ments, direct taxes have been imposed, without the intervention of the Diet, by arbitrary power "; while, as if to demonstrate that the advances of the Emperor were insincere, a decree had just been issued, as they show, for the collection of illegal taxes by military force. And this was what has been termed a "restoration of the ancient constitution"! Most truly do the Diet say :

"A parliamentary Government, a responsible ministry, freedom of the press, with its concomitant trial by jury, and the right of self-taxation, are the strongest guarantees of constitutional liberty. Our sanctioned laws have given us these guarantees, and never shall we consent to their abrogation or curtailment, however modified; we shall always regard a temporary suspension of these laws as a suspension of the constitution- -as a denial of the constitutional principle itself.

After stating, in remarkable contrast to the blustering tone of disregard to moral obligation adopted by Austrian statesmen, that "neither might nor power is the end of government; might is only the means, the end is the happiness of the people," the Diet proceed, in the following words, to summarise the representations which they thought necessary to lay before the Emperor.

"The King of Hungary becomes only by virtue of the act of coronation legal King of Hungary; but the coronation is coupled with certain conditions prescribed by law, the previous fulfilment of which is indispensably necessary. The maintenance of our constitutional independence and of the territorial and political integrity of the country inviolate, the completion of the Diet, the complete restoration of our fundamental laws, the reinstitution of our parliamentary Government and our responsible ministry, and the setting aside of all the still surviving consequences of the absolute system, are the preliminary conditions which must be carried into effect, before deliberation and reconciliation are possible."

We have not space for more than a very cursory review of the Imperial Rescript in reply to this remarkable address, and of the second address by the Diet in way of rejoinder. The Rescript attempts to show that the functions of the Hungarian