68 



AUSTRIA-HUNGARY. 



the Liberal party. The Catholic Congress de- 

 nounced the bill as a usurpation of the jurisdic- 

 tion of the Church, and tin- message sent to it in 

 the name of the Pope expressed the conviction 

 that the Catholics of Hungary would defend the 

 rights and teachings of the Church. The ultra- 

 montane movement stirred the antipathy of a 

 large part of the electorate. Meetings called for 

 the purpose of protesting against civil marriage 

 passed, instead, resolutions approving the Gov- 

 ernment. The popularity of the measure caused 

 many Opposition members to vote with the Gov- 

 ernment in the preliminary action taken on Feb. 

 *>, when a majority of 200 was obtained. Even 

 in the House of Magnates a majority of Minis- 

 terialists were appointed on the committee. The 

 Catholics augmented their exertions and still 

 predicted the defeat of the bill. The bill was 

 passed in the House of Representatives on April 

 TJ by the crushing majority of 281 against 106. 

 The tight was transferred to the House of Mag- 

 nates, and extraordinary efforts were put forth 

 by the opponents of the measure. Magnates at- 

 tached to foreign legations were called home to 

 vote, and in some Catholic families estates were 

 divided to enable younger members to qualify as 

 peers. Threats were made anonymously to blow 

 up the Chamber of Magnates should the Govern- 

 ment obtain a majority. Social pressure was 

 brought into play, and many members who were 

 indifferent Churchmen and had never shown the 

 slightest interest in politics were induced to ap- 

 pear in their unaccustomed seats. The machi- 

 nations of the Opposition would probably have 

 failed if high functionaries of the court had not 

 appeared in open active opposition to the min- 

 istry, strengthening the prevalent impression 

 that the King was anxious to have the measure 

 killed in the Upper Chamber. Magnates who 

 had always been active supporters of the Gov- 

 ernment absented themselves from the proceed- 

 in ITS, and when the vote was taken on May 9 the 

 bill was rejected by a vote of 139 to 118. The 

 majority included 29 Roman Catholic and 8 

 (ireek spiritual peers, while of the Protest nut 

 spiritual peers 10 voted for the measure, and 3 

 abstained from voting. There were 89 members 

 al'-. -nt. of whom (>2 had promised to vote in 

 the affirmative. Indignation was aroused even 

 among Conservatives at the intrusion of mem- 

 bers of the Austrian court in domestic Hunga- 

 rian politics. 



The Conservatives tried to turn the obsequies 

 of Ko>suth to account l.\ represent ing the action 

 of the ministry on that occasion to lie disloyal. 

 On Dr. \Vel<erle's motion the Keichstag ent a 

 deputation to place a wreath on the bier, but re- 

 fu.-ed io c.,n>i(|..r proposals for a state funeral or 

 a monument to the exile who died an enemy to 

 the Constitution. Francis Kossuth, after his 

 fat tier's burial, took the oath MS a Hungarian 

 subject. Students of the university at Huda- 

 P.'Mh stopped the performances at the theaters, 

 and attempted to drape with black the national 

 opera house, thereby coming into conflict with 

 the police. 



Civil marriage was a part of the national pro- 

 gramme of IS |s. and was advocated by Francis 

 Deak in I*?','. The framers of the present meas- 

 ure deemed it e->>ent jal for the moral, social, and 

 political advancement of the people that, instead 



of 8 different forms of marriage treated in the 

 different ecclesiastical laws as of varying value 

 and force, the state should establish a uniform 

 marriage contract and guarantee its equal bind- 

 ing force. The bill provided that the civil Con- 

 tract must precede any religious ceremony. Some 

 of the Slav communities were hostile to the bill, 

 but the Catholic constituencies were not. A 

 large part of the Catholic laity, indeed, joined 

 in Liberal Catholic demonstrations in favor of 

 the bill. 



Dr. Wekerle determined to carry the bill again > 

 through the House of Deputies and send it to the 

 Magnates a second time before the close of the 

 session, making it a question of confidence. But 

 before proceeding to demand a new decision he 

 deemed it indispensable to obtain from the Em- 

 peror certain guarantees. In interviews with 

 Count Kalnoky and Franz Josef he asked that 

 the King should pledge himself to fill up 3 va- 

 cancies among the life peers by nominating sup- 

 porters of the bill ; that he should make public 

 an assurance that he regarded the measure as a 

 political necessity ; and that, if the Opposition 

 was still strong enough to defeat the bill, he 

 should consent to the creation of a sufficient 

 number of new peers to overcome the resistance 

 of his opponents. Kaiser Franz Josef acquiesced 

 willingly in the first two of these conditions, but 

 declined to accede to the last. When the bill 

 was reintroduced Dr. Szilagyi stated that the 

 principle of the bicameral system was that the 

 House of Magnates, being based on a scheme of 

 privilege, should bow to the will of the people, 

 and, if necessary, the Government would not 

 hesitate to increase the number of life members. 

 On May 21 the Reichstag adopted the simple 

 proposal to send back the civil-marriage bill to 

 the House of Magnates by 271 votes to 105. 



Before the bill reached the Magnates Dr. 

 Wekerle went to Vienna to seek the guarantees 

 that he considered indispensable. The Hunga- 

 rian aristocracy, roused to the defense of the 

 legislative powers of the House of Magnates, 

 persuaded the King that it would be improper 

 for him to interpose in the conflict over civil 

 marriage and rescue the bill by flooding the 

 House of Magnates with Liberals. They held 

 out hopes that the bill could be carried without 

 precipitating the constitutional question. The 

 Emperor having rejected the proposal of an un- 

 limited creation of peers, Dr. Wekerle placed the 

 resignations of the Cabinet in his hands. Count 

 Khiin-Hedervary, the Ban of Croatia, a Liberal 

 Magnate, on June 4 accepted the task of forming 

 a ministry to persevere with the bill without 

 making new peers. He reckoned without the 

 Liberal party,"which stood by the retiring min- 

 isters. As Count Khiin-Hedervary was unable 

 to induce any prominent Liberal to accept a 

 portfolio, he gave up the task, and on June 5 the 

 King, who had come to Buda-Pesth, sent for Dr. 

 Wekerle. Being assured that the bill would go 

 through, Wekerle was willing to return to office 

 without demanding from the King a public 

 pledge to create new peers; but the Clericals de- 

 manded, as the price of their allowing the bill to 

 become law, that he should sacrifice Dr. Szilagyi, 

 who had denounced the interference of Austrian 

 courtiers in Hungarian legislation, and also 

 Count Csaky and two or three others. Szilagyi 



