9 6 2 AUSTRIA-HUNGARY 



for social insurance some three to four millions sterling. The Reichsrat therefore passed 

 bills for extensive loans, and on June 24th the Budget for 1910 was agreed to. 



In both Austria and Hungary the ministries appeared to be stronger than the Opposi- 

 tion parties, even though their majorities were very small. The smallness of the 



majorities, however, rendered their position so uncertain that when a 

 The Canal question arose on which the parties were not united the situation might 



become impossible. As a matter of fact it did in Austria; the stone of 

 stumbling was the Canal policy of the Government. As early as 1901 the Korber minis- 

 try had overcome obstruction by holding out the promise of an extensive programme of 

 public works, more especially the construction of numerous canals, in which Czechs and 

 Germans were alike interested. But the cost of the scheme had proved too high, and 

 though the necessary bills had actually passed, the work was never carried out. Part of 

 the plan had been the canalisation of Galician waterways, and the Poles now pressed 

 for their realisation (Nov. 24, 1910). The resolution of Moraszewski was carried by 257 

 votes to 128, and for thirteen days longer the Cabinet held out, hoping that the matter 

 Resignation wou ld not be insisted on. The Poles, however, were determined to make 

 of the the most of their victory, and on December i2th the Bienerth ministry 



Bienerth resigned. The Emperor requested it to carry on the work of government 



Ministry. , , . J 



until a successor should be appointed. In the meantime the House agreed 

 to a provisional budget for three months (Dec. i6th) and also extended the Charter of 

 the Austro-Hungarian Bank until February 1911. 



The reason for the Government's defeat on the Canal issue was the impossibility of 

 uniting the Germans and Czechs, both of whom would, in normal circumstances, have 

 German and v tecl for the Government on this question. But they were as far as ever 

 Czech from any agreement on the language question. An attempt on the part of 



opposition { ne Premier to unite them by a personal appeal to the leaders of the opposing 

 ia Bohemia. u . , , , . . ^ ... ,- 



clubs proved fruitless. Keen as the opposition was in Vienna, it was 



keener still in Prague, where, as a result of the obstructionist policy of the Germans, the 

 Bohemian Diet had to be adjourned after sitting four days (Feb. 8, 1910), because it 

 could do no business. From February 8th to September 3oth the Diet was not in ses- 

 sion, and as a result, since the local budget could not be got through the House, the 

 Executive had to decide on a policy of economy, which included deleting items of expen- 

 diture for humanitarian and educational purposes. No less a sum than three-quarters 

 of a million sterling was thus eliminated, and one consequence was that 280 lunatics had 

 to be released from the State asylums. Nevertheless, the language struggle continued. 

 On September 20, 1910, a conference took place at Cracow between Germans and 

 Czechs with a view to some settlement, the Germans intimating their readiness to meet 

 the other side half way. Thereupon the Diet was summoned for September 3oth. On 

 October 2oth the conference was renewed, and a temporary agreement was arrived at. 

 According to this all self-governing communities should choose their official language as 

 they wished. In Prague, however, all notices should be issued in both languages, but 

 the seal of the city and the names of the streets were to remain Czech. It seemed as 

 though some settlement was in view. But on November 17, 1910, the Germans declared 

 their inability to accept the compromise, and once more the Diet had to be closed 

 (Dec. i4th) without any provision having been made for the financial needs of the year. 

 The result was that Bohemia had to face a deficit of over two millions sterling. 



The struggle in Bohemia was embittered by an agitation to throw off the authority 

 of the Catholic Church (Los von Rom Bewegung). On the 2oth of April a mass meeting 



was held in Johannesberg, which resolved on a policy of leaving the Church, 

 Catholic anf l nxe( l ^ av J 5 tn as ^e day appointed for the purpose. On May 6th 

 .Movement there was a demonstration in front of the Parliament Buildings by several 



hundred divorced men and women, who demanded that the Civil Code 

 sliould be so amended as to allow of divorced persons remarrying, and threatened to 

 leave the Church otherwise. From the oth to the i3th of September the Congress 

 of Austrian Catholics met at Innsbruck, and on the nth a counter demonstration of over 



