GERMANY. 



451 



and Prussia. It combines with the Diet an as- 

 sembly of delegates elected by the Chambers 

 of the states. Austria is entitled to send to this 

 assembly 30 representatives elected by the 

 Diets of the German provinces; Prussia 30 

 members elected by the two Prussian Cham- 

 bers, Bavaria 10, Saxony, Hanover, Wurtem- 

 berg, 6 each, Baden 5, Hesse-Cassel and Hesse- 

 Darmstadt, 4 each ; Holstein, Luxemburg, 

 Brunswick, Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Mocklen- 

 burg-Strelitz, Nassau, Saxe- Weimar Oldenburg, 

 2 each ; Saxe-Coburg, Saxe-Meiningen, Saxe- 

 Altenburg, Liibeck, Frankfort, Bremen, Ham- 

 burg, 1 each ; the duchies of Anhalt together 1, 

 the two Schwarzburg conjointly, 1, Waldeck, 

 Lichtenstein, and the two Lippe, 1 ; total 128. 

 This assembly is to meet only when convoked 

 by the Diet ; and it is to be convoked only 

 when the Diet has elaborated a general law 

 which the assembly may accept, reject, or 

 amend, or when the Diet wishes to receive its 

 opinion on political questions. During the in- 

 terval from one session of the Diet to another 

 an executive is charged with superintending 

 the execution of the Federal acts. The ex- 

 ecutive power is to be alternately in the Em- 

 peror of Austria, the King of Prussia and a 

 third prince elected by the other states of the 

 Confederation. Three other institutions com- 

 plete this organization ; a federal tribunal, a fed- 

 eral chancellorship having its seat at Frankfort, 

 and a military administration of the Confeder- 

 ation. The Austrian Government, in its reply of 

 Nov. 5th, made to this Saxon project the fol- 

 lowing objections : 1. That it altered in a preju- 

 dicial manner the relations of the Germanic 

 Confederation to Foreign Powers. 2. That it 

 virtually incorporated all the Prussian prov- 

 inces with the Confederation, by providing for 

 the election of the Prussian deputies by the 

 whole < >f the two Prussian Chambers. 3. That 

 it gave to the deputies a certain competency in 

 political questions. 4. That it was not likely 

 to simplify Federal affairs. 5. That it demanded 

 from Austria the sacrifice of the permanent 

 Presidency without offering to her an equiva- 

 lent. Austria declared her readiness to re- 

 nounce the permanent Presidency, if the Con- 

 federation would admit to the rights of the 

 Confederation all the territories of Austria and 

 Prussia. She also declared in favor of main- 

 taining the Diet at Frankfort, and of adding 

 a representative element. 



The Prussian Government, in its reply of Dec. 

 20th, expressed the opinion that it was espe- 

 cially necessary to avoid all that could transform 

 Germany into a federal state, because the con- 

 stitution of a federal state would require the 

 chief direction to be given to one of the two 

 great powers, which would force the other out 

 of the Confederation. According to the opin- 

 ion of the Prussian Government, the S.ixon 

 project gave to the small states a disproportion- 

 ate influence. A closer union might be effect- 

 ed by means of special conventions between 

 some members of the Confederation. Prussia 



already had concluded a military convention 

 (June 1st) with the Duke of Saxe-Coburg- 

 Gotha, by virtue of which the military force 

 of the Duchy was put under the command of 

 Prussia. But on Nov. 23d, the Duke of Saxe- 

 Meiningen formally protested against this con- 

 vention, as violating the rights of the agnates, 

 and the King of Saxony a few days later united 

 in this protest. 



The view of Prussia respecting the right of 

 the states to form special conventions was de- 

 nied by Austria, the four kingdoms, and Hesse- 

 Darmstadt and Nassau, in a note of Feb. 

 2d. -They regarded such conventions as clear- 

 ly opposed to the spirit of the Federal Constitu- 

 tion. Prussia, in notes dated Feb. 14th and 

 21st, again supported her views, and con- 

 tinued her negotiations with other small states 

 for the conclusion of special military conven- 

 tions. 



A new conference for discussing the subject 

 of Federal reform was held at Vienna, in July, 

 1862, and attended by representatives of Aus- 

 tria, the four kingdoms, the two Hesse and 

 Nassau. A hew proposition of reform was 

 agreed upon and laid before the Diet on August 

 14th. The main feature of the project was 

 again the establishment of an assembly of dele- 

 gates chosen by the parliaments of the different 

 states. Austria proposed at the same time a 

 new project of a Federal tribunal, which was to 

 sit at Frankfort and to consist of fifteen ordina- 

 ry members and fifteen extraordinary assessors. 

 The representatives of Prussia protested against 

 all these schemes, and contended that any reso- 

 lution of this kind could not be passed by a 

 majority, but only by a unanimity of vo'es. 



The people of Germany, while they were 

 unanimous in demanding a reform of the Fed- 

 eral Constitution and the convocation of a Ger- 

 man parliament, were divided on the question 

 whether Austria was to be include:! in the recon- 

 structed union or not. The majority of the "Na- 

 tional Verein" were in favor of reconstructing 

 Germany without Austria and under the leader- 

 ship of Prussia, find they were, therefore, called 

 by their opponents the Little German Party 

 (Kleindeutsch). Those who insisted on embr-ic- 

 ing Austria in the union called themselves the 

 Great German Party ^Grossdeutsch). In addi- 

 tion to these two national organizations, each of 

 which held annually a General Assembly, there 

 was also organized, in 1862, a General Assembly 

 of the members of German legislatures ("Ab- 

 geord-neten-Tag "). Those three bodies, which 

 must be well distinguished from each other, 

 namely: 1, the General Assembly of ihe" Na- 

 tional Verein," called by their opponents the 

 Little German Party ; 2, the General Assembly 

 of the " Great German " Party (also called the 

 "German Reformed Association"); and 8, the 

 General Assembly of the members of Germtn 

 Diets, exercised a great influence upon the 

 progress of the Union movement. From the 

 detailed accounts of their proceedings in 1862 

 and 1863, which we give below, it will be seen 



