RELATIONS BETWEEN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY 537 



its male lineage (1686), and afterwards on the feminine descendants, 

 too, in 1723. This was effected through the celebrated transaction 

 known to history as the Pragmatic Sanction of Emperor Charles VI 

 (Charles III as King of Hungary), which, being the basis on which 

 our present relation to Austria rests, has to be considered here with 

 some accuracy. 



The Pragmatic Sanction consists of several instruments, diplo- 

 matic and legislative, of which the Hungarian Law I, II, and III of 

 1723 alone has legal value and practical importance for Hungary. 

 In that law the legislature of the realm settled the question of suc- 

 cession to the Hungarian throne in accordance with King Charles 

 Ill's wishes by the following enactments: 



1. Hereditary right to reign as kings in Hungary is confirmed to 

 the male and female descendants of the Kings Leopold I, Joseph I, 

 and Charles III in conformity with the law of primogeniture already 

 in vogue in the Austrian domains, to the effect that as long as the 

 above-mentioned lineage lasts, the same physical person must infal- 

 libly reign in both countries, Hungary and Austria, with no legal 

 possibility of division (inseparabiliter ac indivisibiliter possidenda 

 are the words of the law). The other collateral branches of the 

 Austrian house have no right to succession in Hungary, though they 

 may be possessed of it in Austria. 



2. Notwithstanding that personal union, the independence of 

 the Hungarian Crown and the old liberties of the kingdom are sol- 

 emnly recognized and reasserted. 



3. When the above-described lineage becomes extinct, Hungary 

 will use again her ancient right of free election to the throne, irre- 

 spective of what Austria, or any part of Austria, may choose to do in 

 that emergency. 



4. As long as this lineage lasts and the same physical person reigns 

 in both countries, Hungary and Austria are bound to assist each 

 other against foreign aggression. 



On analyzing this fundamental transaction we must take notice of 

 its contents and of its form. 



In the contents there is nothing to take away any particle of 

 Hungary's independence and national sovereignty. A personal tie 

 is formed, it is true, with another country. I call it personal because 

 it lasts only as long as a certain set of persons, a certain lineage, exists 

 and becomes ipso facto severed whenever those persons disappear. 

 But that personal tie, the identity of the ruler, does not affect the 

 juridical independence of the country, because that identity exists 

 only with respect to the physical person, while the personality of the 

 King of Hungary remains quite as distinct in public law from the 

 personality of the Austrian ruler as it had been before; as King of 

 Hungary that monarch, physically one, is possessed of the preroga- 



