RELATIONS BETWEEN AUSTRIA AND HUNGARY 539 



the Magna Charta, the Bill of Rights, the Petition of Rights, to that 

 same family belongs the law which I am about to quote : 



" Law I of the year 1790-1791, Emperor and King Leopold II, 

 Article 10. 



" On the humble proposal of the estates and orders of the realm, his 

 most holy Majesty has been pleased to recognize: 



" That, though the succession of the feminine branch of the Aus- 

 trian house, decreed in Hungary and her annexed parts by the 

 Laws I and II of 1723, belongs, according to the fixed order of suc- 

 cession and in indivisible and inseparable possession, to the same 

 prince whose it is in the other kingdoms and hereditary domains, 

 situated in or out of Germany; Hungary with her annexed parts is 

 none the less a free and independent kingdom concerning her whole 

 form of rule (including therein every branch of administration') , which 

 means submitted to no other kingdom or people, but possessed of her 

 own consistence and constitution; therefore, she must be ruled by 

 her hereditary and crowned kings; consequently by his most holy 

 Majesty too, and by his successors, according to her own laws and 

 customs, and not after the example of other provinces, as is already 

 enacted by the Laws III, 1715; VIII and XI, 1741." 



The clear and forcible language of this fundamental law requires 

 no additional explanation. We must now only inquire into the 

 nature of later transactions, and see how they bear on our problem. 



And here we are first brought face to face with a fact which, 

 though irrelevant in itself, has wrought much confusion, and is still 

 a rich source of misunderstandings. I mean the assumption, in the 

 year 1804, of the title of " Emperor of Austria " by Francis I, when 

 the "Holy Roman Empire of German Nationality" had collapsed. 

 Many people think that this imperial title extends over all his 

 Majesty's domains, Hungary included, and that it represents a 

 collective sovereignty superior to that of the Hungarian Crown. 

 The corresponding territorial idea is that of an Austrian Empire, 

 including Hungary. Now, these conceptions are absolutely false. 

 The new imperial title has nothing whatever to do with Hungary, 

 it has legal existence only with respect to those other domains which, 

 from that date, can be properly called Austria, to the exclusion 

 of the Kingdom of Hungary. As ruler of those other domains his 

 Majesty may call himself whatever he pleases, but in Hungary the 

 King alone reigns, and never will the time-hallowed majesty of our 

 old Crown be melted into the splendors of a brand-new imperial 

 diadem, never will it be controlled by any fancied superior power. 

 Hungary never suffered mediatization, no act of her legislative body 

 points that way, and no act of prerogative can achieve it. The title 

 of " Emperor " is simply a collective designation for the portion of 

 sovereignty enjoyed by his Majesty in his other domains; in Hun- 



