path: root/77398-0.txt

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77398 ***




                                 CRIMES
                                 OF THE
                            HOUSE OF AUSTRIA
                            AGAINST MANKIND.

                            PROVED BY EXTRACTS

 FROM THE HISTORIES OF COXE, SCHILLER, ROBERTSON, GRATTAN, AND SISMONDI,
 WITH MRS. M. L. PUTNAM’S HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HUNGARY, AND ITS
             RELATIONS WITH AUSTRIA, PUBLISHED IN MAY, 1850.

                                  EDITED
                            BY E. P. PEABODY.

                            =Second Edition.=

                                NEW-YORK:
                       G. P. PUTNAM, 10 PARK PLACE.
                                  1852.




         Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1852,
                          BY RODOLPHE GARRIQUE,
 In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the United States for the
                      Southern District of New-York.




                                PREFACE
                                   OF
                            SECOND EDITION.


This work was first published for the benefit of the Hungarian Fund, on
the understanding (which proved a misunderstanding), of a certain
autograph acknowledgment which failed to arrive at the time expected.

Those who had the care of the publication consequently took the liberty,
without the leave or knowledge of the Editor, who was absent, to
mutilate the correspondence that formed the Preface, making it
irrelevant within itself, and insignificant altogether. The Preface is
therefore wholly left out in this edition, and an Analytic Index is
prefixed; and the stereotypes have passed into the hands of the present
publisher, who republishes it, confident that these important passages
of unquestionable history will benefit the Hungarian cause, by showing
its necessity and justice, although it is impossible to benefit the
Hungarian Fund by the proceeds of the work.




                           ANALYTICAL INDEX.


 Biographical Notices of Rodolphe of Hapsburgh, 4;
   of Albert I., 15;
   Frederic & Leopold, 22;
   Albert II., 24;
   Rodolphe & Frederic, 31;
   Albert III. & Leopold II., 32;
   Albert V., 39;
   Sigismund, 40;
   Charles V., 51;
   Ferdinand I., 62;
   Philip II., 143;
   Ferdinand II., 79;
   Leopold I., Emperor, 188;
   Joseph I., 190;
   Charles VI., 191;
   Maria Theresa, 179 & 192;
   Joseph II., 160 & 192;
   Leopold II., 193;
   Francis, 196.

 Destruction of Constitutional Rights of Austria and Styria, 16; 20; 44.

 Attempted destruction of those of Switzerland, 16; 20; 32; 40 to 48.

 Destruction of those of Bohemia, 17; 39; 64.

 Italy and its Conquered Rights, 91–110.

 Netherlands      do.      do., 136–174.

 Poland and its Partition, 176–181.

 Hungary, and the War upon its Constitution, 20; 39; 62; 182–230.




                                ERRATA.


              Rulhire for _Rulhière_, pp. 176 & 177.
              Philip II. for _III._, last line of p. 148.




                                 CRIMES
                                   OF
                          THE HOUSE OF AUSTRIA
                            AGAINST MANKIND.


Frederic Schlegel, in that extraordinary piece of sophistry, called the
Philosophy of History, would have it “that the final cause of the
Universe was to build up the Romano-Germanic Empire as the Metropolis
and bulwark of _Christendom_.”

This work, the substance of a course of eighteen lectures, delivered in
Vienna, has little chance of making any great impression on mankind; for
the genius which in his younger days guided SCHLEGEL in surveying the
literatures of the world, and inspired his eloquent account of them,
seems naturally enough to have deserted him, when he yoked himself as a
drayhorse to the car of despotism and superstition. Nothing short of
imperial authority could have compelled any human audience to have
endured eighteen lectures of such dark metaphysics; but this, as we are
exultingly told, was abundantly exerted, even by example, for the
Imperial family attended in person!

That “Might makes Right” is a principle asserted not exclusively by the
House of Austria, or rather by the _House of Hapsburgh_; (for we must
not entirely absorb Austria in the House of Hapsburgh. Recent events
have shown that Austria also has an entity of its own, and that so far
as it exists, it has interests antagonistic to those of the reigning
family).

But the Imperial House makes pretensions which especially challenge
mankind to bring it to the bar for righteous judgment. From the day when
Rodolph the First wrote to Pope Gregory X. to confirm his election to
the Empire, even to the present hour, this family has professed to be
the elect Servant of the Most High, for the benefit of Mankind. Out of
its own mouth shall it be judged.

“_Conscious_,” says Rodolph, in that memorable document, “_of my own
deficiency, and trembling with astonishment and fear, I hesitated
whether I should accept so eminent a station_; until, at length,
_trusting in Him_, who in the high and ineffable decrees of his
Providence, changes as He wills the condition of mortals, _adds strength
to the feeble and gives eloquence to the simple, I assumed courage
sufficient to venture, weak as I am_, upon so laborious and difficult an
office, hoping that neither _the grace of God_, nor the favour _of His
Holy Church_, nor your paternal affection will be wanting to me.
_Turning, therefore, all my thoughts to Him_ under whose authority we
live, and placing all my expectations on you alone, I fall down before
the feet of your Holiness, beseeching you, with the most earnest
supplications, to favour me with your accustomed kindness in my present
undertaking; and that you will deign _by your mediation with the Most
High_ to support _my cause, which I may truly call the cause of the
whole German Empire, that He may condescend to direct my steps according
to His will, and lead me in the ways of His commandments_. That I may be
enabled therefore, successfully to perform _what is most acceptable to
Him and to His_ Holy Church, may it graciously please your Holiness to
crown me with the Imperial Diadem, for I trust I am both able and
willing to undertake and accomplish whatever you and the Holy Church
shall think proper to impose upon me.”

Such is the great and solemn pretension. And now in the first place
mankind asks, who art thou, Rodolph of Hapsburgh, professing thyself
humbly and unwillingly to be taking upon thyself the cares of Empire,
out of mere devotion to God and to the human race whom God would lead,
as a bridegroom leads his bride to the altar, giving himself to her and
for her? Has then the Christian Charity which is greater than Faith and
Hope and “_seeketh not her own_,” marked thy life’s conduct up to this
time? And what are the conditions of the compact between thyself and the
earthly representative of the Divine Providence? Are they that thou
shalt enquire into the genius and institutions of all the nations that
shall be united under thee, with a view to vindicate to every man the
liberty wherewith Christ would make him free; to give scope for the
perfect development of every material resource of the countries they
inhabit, and of every intellectual and moral opportunity that the Past,
the Present, and the Future shall present?

Thine own words challenge the enquiry; the pretensions of all thy
posterity, ever renewed, repeat the challenge. From the mountains of
Switzerland, from the plains of Italy, from the rocks of Catalonia, from
ruined and emasculated Bohemia, from partitioned Poland, from long
betrayed though ever generous Hungary, even from thine own Tyrol and
Styria, and Austria, come up the accusers, and impartial History gives
utterance in some small measure to the voice of their manifold
accusation.

The present volume will principally consist of a series of extracts from
different historical works, in which the crimes of the House of
Hapsburgh against liberty and law are _incidentally_ related. There
seems to be a call, just now, that the testimony of History upon this
subject should be laid before the American people. Their heart is
touched by the events of the last three years, and it is well that their
sensibility should have the support of their reason, enlightened by the
truth, that they may not be the victims of every newspaper paragraph
which venal partisans of the cause of legitimacy in Europe may have the
art to insinuate into the current periodicals; and which presume upon
the common ignorance in this country, of the details of European
history, that comes to us at best only through books written more or
less in the spirit of monarchy. A history of Europe written from the
republican point of view, a history of nations and not of their
governors, is the desideratum for the people of these United States. But
such a work requires both genius and integrity of soul to conceive, and
a vast industry properly to execute, the discovery of the exact truth
being infinitely the greatest part of the labor required. We may only
avail ourselves at this moment of such history as is written, and if
something of the force of the statement is lost by the fragmentary
nature of our work, on the other hand something will be gained to the
argument from the consideration, that the passages brought as witnesses
were not written primarily to serve the object to which we direct them.
They are largely taken from conservative writings. Archdeacon Coxe
gathered his materials in Vienna, and himself states that “to this
family Europe owes its preservation,” and that it has “formed the great
bulwark of political freedom!” To the tissue of violence and rapacity
which forms the life of each successive head of the family, he always
appends an EULOGY, sometimes ludicrously in contrast with the facts he
has related, but which is presumptive evidence that he would not make
those facts worse than they were. From the first chapter of his History
of the House of Austria we extract the origin of the family, with a
memoir which elucidates the personal character of the author of the
letter to the pope, quoted above. We abridge all we extract by making as
many omissions as possible; but the exploring of the sources from which
we make our extracts will show that the omissions in no instance falsify
the facts related. We purposely leave out the false coloring which the
author’s own remarks sometimes give to these facts, together with the
numerous episodes which make the narrative heavy, and weaken the moral
impression of it, by scattering and wearying the attention.

Ethico, Duke of Alsace in the seventh century, and Guntram, Count of
Alsace and Brisgau in the tenth century, were the most important
ancestors of the House of Hapsburgh. Guntram’s grandson Werner, bishop
of Strasburg, built the castle which gives name to the House, near
Windisch, the site of the Roman colony, Vindonessa; and a nephew of his,
likewise named Werner, took the title of Count of Hapsburgh in 1046. A
Count of Hapsburgh, called Albert IV., went on a crusade in 1232, and
died at Askalon in 1240. He was the father of the great founder of the
imperial power of the family.

“Rodolph was born in 1218, probably at the ancient castle of Limburgh,
or Limper in Brisgau, on the confines of Alsace, and was presented at
the font by the Emperor Frederic II., to whose house he was distantly
allied. Under the auspices of his warlike father he passed his youth in
the court and camp of Frederic II., and was initiated at an early age in
the use of arms. He was trained to wrestling and running, was skilled in
horsemanship, excelled in throwing the javelin, and being endowed with
great strength and vigor, gave eminent proofs of superiority over his
companions in all military exercises.

“On the death of his father, Rodolph inherited only the Landgraviate of
Upper Alsace, the Burgraviate of Rheinfelden, and in conjunction with
his brothers, succeeded to the County of Hapsburgh, the inhabitants of
which being free, were exempted from arbitrary taxes; to some scattered
domains in Suabia and Brisgau; and the advocacies or prefectureships of
a few of the neighboring towns and districts. Though in possession of
such confined territories, Rodolph followed the example of the German
princes, who considered peace as inglorious, _and sought to aggrandise
their fortunes by pillage or conquest_. He maintained a splendid
establishment, formed a chosen band of troops, collected adventurers
from all nations, more than his scanty revenues would support; and eager
to signalise himself in arms, gave full scope to his enterprising
genius. For some time he found no respite from war; he was either
engaged in protecting the surrounding states from the incursions of
banditti and depredations of the powerful barons, or _under various
pretences invading the possessions of others_, and defending his own
property from the encroachments of ambitious neighbours.

“The first of his exploits in his native country was in 1242, against
Hugh of Tuffenstein, a young baron, who had provoked his resentment by
contumelious expressions. Rodolph invested a fortress of considerable
strength belonging to his adversary, and having failed in attempting to
take it by storm, obtained entrance _by bribing the sentinels_, and made
himself master of the place, notwithstanding the desperate valour of
Hugh, who was killed in the defence.

“He next turned his arms against his uncle and guardian Rodolph of
Lauffenburg, whom he accused of embezzling a part of his patrimony. He
found, however, an intrepid and enterprising opponent in his cousin
Godfrey, the son of Rodolph: and after carrying havoc into each other’s
territories, the two relatives effected a reconciliation, by which
Rodolph obtained some compensation for his demands. This accommodation
was succeeded by an intimate friendship between the two youthful heroes,
who in this short contest had learned to admire and emulate each other.

“We next find Rodolph engaged in hostilities with his uncle Hartman,
count of Kyburgh. The dominions of the House of Kyburgh were at this
time jointly possessed by Hartman the elder, second son of Ulric, and
his nephew Hartman the younger. In order to find resources for the pay
of his retainers, Rodolph had obtained from his uncle a sum of money as
the arrears of his mother’s portion. Encouraged by the facility with
which he succeeded in this demand, and pressed by his necessities, he
made further exactions, and at length claimed a considerable part of the
territories belonging to the two Hartmans. This claim being rejected he
instantly invaded, in 1244, the dominions of Hartman the elder, occupied
Baden, Winterthur, and Mersburgh, extorted a considerable largess as the
price of their restoration, and a promise, that should his uncle and
cousin die without issue male, the possessions of the House of Kyburgh
should revert to him. _By this violence_ he indeed obtained a sum of
money for his immediate necessities; but forfeited the affections of his
uncle, and nearly lost the territories which he was entitled to inherit;
for Hartman, with the consent of his nephew, transferred to the bishop
of Strasburgh the counties of Baden, Lentzburgh, and Kyburgh, and
received them in return for himself and his nephew as fiefs of the see.

“The chronicles, which detail his minutest actions, scarcely again
mention him till the year 1253, when he, engaged with other nobles of
the Imperial or Ghibeline party against Bertold, bishop of Basle,
_penetrated into the suburbs of the city by night, and burnt a nunnery_,
for which he was excommunicated by Pope Innocent IV. It was probably to
obtain the revocation of this sentence, that we find him serving under
Ottocar, king of Bohemia, against the Prussians, a (Slavonian) people
then in a state of paganism, _who were defending their liberties_, in
opposition to the Teutonic knights, and against whom the pope had
published a crusade. He afterwards assisted Ottocar in his war with
Bela, king of Hungary; and perhaps had a share in the complete victory
which insured to the king of Bohemia the possession of Austria and
Styria, and confined Bela within the limits of Hungary.

“On his return to his native country he was involved in a series of wars
in Alsace and Switzerland. Finding the bishop and citizens of Strasburgh
in open hostilities against each other, he assisted the bishop,
signalised himself by his valour and activity, and _compelled the
citizens_ to conclude a truce. At the same time he effected a
reconciliation with his uncle Hartman, who, pleased with his change of
conduct, and struck with his rising fame, endeavoured to recover from
the bishop of Strasburgh the deed of donation which he had made of his
territories. Rodolph urged the same request to the bishop during the
truce, recapitulated his services, and tendered his future assistance;
but meeting with a refusal, he replied, “Since you pay no regard to the
greatest services, and seem inclined rather to offend than conciliate
your friends, Rodolph of Hapsburgh, instead of your ally, is become your
most inveterate enemy.” Laying his hand on his sword, he added, “While I
am master of this weapon, neither you nor any other person shall wrest
from me those dominions, which I am to inherit by right of my mother;
and since, in contradiction to every principle of justice, you grasp at
the possessions of others, know that you shall shortly lose your own.”
Nor was this threat uttered in vain; for in 1259 the citizens of
Strasburgh, availing themselves of the breach, requested Rodolph to
accept the supremacy of their city, and the command of their troops. He
joyfully received this well-timed offer, and repairing to take
possession of his new charge, the inhabitants went out in crowds to meet
their deliverer, hailed him as a person sent by heaven, and considered
his presence as a sure omen of victory.

“By espousing the cause of the citizens, Rodolph acted with _equal
prudence and judgment_. The citizens in those days were mostly soldiers,
accustomed to defend their liberties against the vexations of their own
nobles, and of the neighboring barons. They were animated with an
undaunted spirit; from the nature of their governments, they were more
subject to control, and more obedient to military order than the lawless
retainers of the nobles; and their industry and commerce supplied the
means of supporting the burdens of war. From their instruction in public
schools, and from the force of example, their minds were more
enlightened, their comprehension keener, and they were more calculated
for those ambuscades, feints, and stratagems, of which the art of war at
that time principally consisted. Rodolph, in the character of their
captain, general, or advocate, won their confidence and esteem.
_Assisted by their spirit, and supported by their riches, he was enabled
to humble the rivals of his power._

“Among others the citizens of Zurich, in 1265, chose him as their
prefect, and invested him with the command of their troops; and this
appointment involved him in a war with the count of Regensberg, and a
formidable confederacy of the neighboring barons, _which highly
contributed to his subsequent greatness_.

“During the troubles of the interregnum in the German empire, the
burghers of Zurich, which was an imperial city, had gradually acquired
considerable privileges, and began to assume the administration of their
own affairs. In order to strengthen themselves against the power of the
nobles, they contracted alliances with the sister republics, and
endeavored to secure a protector among their neighboring princes. For
this purpose they despatched an embassy to Lutold, baron of Regensberg,
whose territories almost surrounded Zurich, and extended along the
eastern shore of the lake, as far as Rapperschwyl. Lutold answered the
messengers with scorn: ‘Tell your citizens that Zurich is surrounded by
my subjects as a fish in a net; let the inhabitants surrender themselves
to me, and I will govern them with mildness.’ In this strait the
citizens turned to Rodolph of Hapsburgh, who accepted their offer,
repaired to Zurich, and assumed the command. Undaunted by the
confederacy which Lutold had formed with the count of Tockenburgh, and
other neighboring barons, he placed his hopes of success in celerity and
decision. He collected his own troops and those of Zurich; drew
assistance from the cities of Alsace, and the circle of the Lower Rhine;
summoned to his standard the mountaineers of Uri, Schwyz, and
Underwalden, and marched against the enemy.”

We omit the details of his success in this instance, and of his
surprising the castles of Balder, and of Utleberg.

“After a series of similar stratagems, sieges, and other engagements,
his arms were crowned with repeated successes; and the confederate
barons, struck with terror, exclaimed, ‘All opposition is fruitless!
Rodolph is invincible!’”

It was when Rodolph was engaged in a war, growing out of his possession
of Kyburgh, whose details we omit, that having retired to his tent, he
was awakened at midnight by his nephew Frederic of Hohenzollern,
burgrave of Nuremberg, with the intelligence that he was unanimously
chosen King of the Romans by the electors of Germany. In the first
moments of surprise, Rodolph could not give credit to this unexpected
intelligence; and even expressed his indignation against the burgrave
for attempting to deceive and insult him. “Convinced, however, by his
solemn protestations, and by letters from the electors, he recovered
from his surprise, and _joyfully accepted the proffered dignity_. The
news of his election being quickly disseminated, the citizens of Basle
opened their gates, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the bishop. ‘We
have taken arms,’ they said, ‘against Rodolph, Count of Hapsburgh, and
not against the King of the Romans.’ The bishop acceded to terms of
peace, the prisoners on both sides were released, and Rodolph’s
followers admitted in triumph. The new sovereign was received amidst
general acclamations; the citizens took the oath of fidelity, and
presented him with a considerable largess towards defraying the expenses
of his coronation. The bishop, chagrined at the success and elevation of
his rival, struck his forehead with vexation, and profanely exclaimed,
“Sit fast, great God, or Rodolph will occupy thy throne!”

We omit the account which Coxe gives of the general state of Germany as
aside from our purpose. He proceeds to tell us that in an unfavorable
aspect of affairs, the electors met at Frankfort in September 1273, and
two candidates presented themselves, Alphonso King of Castile, and
Ottocar King of Bohemia; but, contrary to all expectation, the
nomination fell on Rodolph, Count of Hapsburgh.

“Many circumstances contributed to favor his advancement, among which
the most effectual were the views and interests of the seven electors,
by whom the right of nomination was at this time assumed; namely, the
Archbishops of Mentz, Cologne, and Treves, the King of Bohemia, Otho
Margrave of Brandenburgh, Albert Duke of Saxony, and Louis Duke of
Bavaria and Count Palatine, who seems to have possessed a joint vote
with his brother Henry. Of these, the most strenuous in the cause of
Rodolph was Werner of Eppenstein, Elector of Mentz. On his nomination to
the archiepiscopal see of Mentz, Werner had repaired to Rome, in order
to receive the confirmation of his office, and the pallium from the
hands of the Pope; and as the road was infested with banditti, he was
escorted by Rodolph himself across the Alps, and treated on his return
with equal cordiality and magnificence. Werner, captivated by his
attentions, character, and talents, expressed a wish that he might live
to repay the obligation. Such an opportunity now presented itself, and
Werner used all his influence to secure the nomination of Rodolph. He
secretly gained the Electors of Cologne and Treves; and found means to
influence the secular Electors, by the prospect of a matrimonial
alliance with their future chief, who had six daughters unmarried. His
intrigues and recommendation were strongly supported by Frederic of
Hohenzollern, the friend and relation of Rodolph, who had great
influence with the secular electors, contributed to remove all
obstacles, and concluded the negotiation in his name.

“The peculiar situation of Louis the Severe, Duke of Bavaria, induced
him to accept the hand of Matilda, eldest daughter of Rodolph. He had
espoused Mary, princess of Brabant, and on a vague suspicion of
infidelity had put her to death. Although he had received absolution
from Pope Alexander IV., on condition of founding a convent of
Chartreux, yet discontents still prevailing among the Bavarian nobles,
who were convinced of Mary’s innocence, rendered him apprehensive of the
interference of a future emperor. For this reason he received with joy
the proposal of Matilda in marriage; and agreed to support the
nomination of a prince, whose interests would be thus strongly connected
with his own. Two of the other secular Electors, Albert of Saxony and
Otho of Brandenburgh, were likewise gained by the hope of espousing
Agnes and Hedwig.

“The character and situation of the Count of Hapsburgh were admirably
suited for the emergency, and to the views of the Electors, who desired
an emperor, but dreaded a master. His great civil and military talents
rendered him a fit person to direct the reins of government, while from
the comparatively small extent of his possessions, he was not deemed
sufficiently powerful to wrest from the Electors those fiefs which they
had appropriated during the troubles of the empire, or to rule Germany
with the same despotic sway as the great chiefs of the Houses of
Franconia and Suabia.

“Werner having succeeded in obtaining six voices, artfully proposed that
the princes should abide by the nomination of Louis of Bavaria. He
either gained the consent of the Bohemian ambassadors to this
compromise, by insinuating that the choice would fall on Ottocar, or
prevailed on the other Electors to reject his vote, and to allow two
voices to the Bavarian princes. Louis accordingly nominated Rodolph of
Hapsburgh; the protests and remonstrances of the Bohemian ambassadors
were disregarded, and the election of Rodolph declared unanimous by the
concurrence of the seven Electors. The new King of the Romans was
inaugurated at Aix-la-Chapelle, with the ancient crown of Charlemagne;
and the ceremony was followed by the marriage of his two daughters,
Matilda and Agnes, with Louis of Bavaria and Albert Duke of Saxony,
which increased his weight and influence, and secured to him the
assistance of those powerful princes.

“His situation was full of difficulty and danger. He was threatened with
the vengeance of his disappointed rival Ottocar, and he was opposed by
the Anti-Cæsar, Alphonso of Castile; both of whom refused to acknowledge
his election, and sent ambassadors with large presents, to obtain the
countenance of the Pope. Fully sensible therefore of the perils with
which he was surrounded, Rodolph did not rely on the unanimity of his
election, nor on his coronation at Aix-la-Chapelle; but turned his first
and principal attention to secure the ratification of the reigning
pontiff. It was on this occasion he wrote the letter to Gregory X.
already quoted.

“The ambassadors of Rodolph were received with complacency by the Pope,
and obtained his sanction by agreeing in the name of their master to the
same conditions which Otho IV. and Frederic II. had sworn to observe,
_i. e._, by confirming all the donations of the emperors, his
predecessors, to the papal see; by promising to accept no office or
dignity in any of the papal territories, particularly in the city of
Rome, without the consent of the Pope; by agreeing not to disturb, nor
permit the house of Anjou to be disturbed in the possession of Naples
and Sicily, which they held as fiefs from the Roman see; and by engaging
to undertake in person a crusade against the infidels. In consequence of
these concessions, Gregory gave the new King of the Romans his most
cordial support, refused to listen to the overtures of Ottocar, and
after much difficulty finally succeeded in persuading Alphonso to
renounce his pretensions to the Imperial dignity.”

The foregoing extract is a commentary on the letter to the Pope first
quoted. We must now proceed to illustrate the career of Rodolph and his
successors, as _Emperors_, in order to show how the system of rapine
which had marked his private action, became the rule thereafter, in
spite of the prayers which he craved from the Pope, that the most High
_should lead him_ in the ways _of His commandments, to successfully
perform what is most acceptable to Him_!

And here we must draw a distinction. Rodolph contended in the spirit of
rapine with other kings animated by the same spirit, and his successors
do the same. We do not care to examine all these struggles of
selfishness with selfishness. What we wish to select from history, is
the contest of these rulers with the liberty and welfare of _the
nations_, the possession of which was the subject matter of dispute. It
is impossible by means of any history yet written, or indeed for any
thing short of the imagination of a humane heart, to conceive all the
sufferings and oppressions and injustice done to the people, whose
territories were the theatres of these struggles, whose laboriously
acquired property supported the combatants, and who themselves were
constrained to become combatants in battles where even victory brought
them no benefits. We shall especially dwell upon the direct invasion of
the Constitutions and natural rights of nations, and the most salient
calamities inflicted in these ever renewing wars of selfish ambition.

Rodolph’s first contest was with Ottocar, king of Bohemia, his old
friend, but who had been a rival for the imperial crown, and now refused
to accept Rodolph as Emperor.

Ottocar was then the most powerful prince of Europe. “For his dominions
extended from the confines of Bavaria to Raab in Hungary, and from the
Adriatic to the shores of the Baltic.” He had himself acquired Styria,
Austria, Carniola, and Carinthia. He had also the alliance of Henry of
Bavaria.

But Rodolph was not daunted by Ottocar’s power. He began upon Henry of
Bavaria, and forcing him to renounce his alliance with Ottocar, attached
him to himself by giving his daughter Hedwig to Otho, son of Henry,
promising a part of Upper Austria for her portion. He then conquered
Austria, while he employed Meinhard of Tyrol to conquer Styria and
Carinthia, and ended with himself laying siege to Vienna. The result of
all in the end was nothing less than that Ottocar renounced all his
claims to Austria, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, and Windischmark, and
delivered up to the king of Hungary all the places he had formerly
wrested from him with Rodolph’s own assistance, doing homage to Rodolph,
kneeling, for Bohemia and Moravia, of which he obtained from him the
investiture.

Immediately after this Rodolph established his own family in the
Austrian dominions, by persuading the Archbishop of Saltzburgh and the
bishops of Passau, Freysinger, and Bamberg, to confer on his sons,
Albert, Hartman, and Rodolph, the ecclesiastical fiefs held by the duke
of Austria.

“In order to reward his retainers,” says Coxe, “_he was compelled to lay
considerable impositions on his new subjects_, and to obtain free gifts
from the bishops and clergy; and the discontents arising from this,
probably induced Ottocar to attempt the recovery of the territories
which he had lost. So desperate did Rodolph then find his affairs, and
so little had he gained of real power, or made his allies and new people
feel that their interests were identified with his success, that he
frequently exclaimed, says Coxe, “that there was not one in whom he
could confide, or on whose advice he could depend,” and, in the words of
a contemporary chronicle, “all his family ran to confessors, arranged
their affairs, forgave their enemies, and received the communion.”

In these desperate circumstances he roused himself to conciliate the
city of Vienna by declaring it an imperial city, and then, with the
assistance of the king of Hungary, at the battle of Marchfield, defeated
Ottocar, who was taken prisoner and killed in cold blood, (not, however,
by the hand or with the consent of Rodolph). A peace ensued, for Rodolph
was afraid to retain the Hungarian army in his dominions, and he could
not fight without it. He obtained Moravia for five years by the treaty
of peace; his son-in-law Otho became regent for the infant son of
Ottocar, while his son Rodolph married the Bohemian princess Agnes, and
his two daughters were affianced to the young king of Bohemia, and to
Otho the Less. After this, some time was spent in transferring the
Austrian territories to his family, in which operation he found many
difficulties; but at length he succeeded, and with the consent of the
States of Austria, declared that duchy and Styria an indivisible domain,
and vested its sole administration in his son Albert.

But even before the second war with Ottocar was over, we find Rodolph in
Italy. He had indeed yielded to the conditions made by Pope Gregory X.
not to interfere with the house of Anjou in Naples, or to claim any
authority over the papal territories; but in less than two years after
Gregory’s death, he attempted, the revival of the imperial authority in
Italy. The decided action of Nicholas III. who threatened him with
excommunication, induced him, however, to give up this enterprise; and
to reward his compliance, Nicholas induced Charles, King of Naples, to
resign the vicariate of Tuscany to Rodolph, receiving in exchange the
investiture of Provence and Tourcalquier _as fiefs of the_ EMPIRE, for
which acts of homage Rodolph, on the other hand, affianced his daughter
Clementia to Charles Martel of Naples. But, after all, Rodolph could not
revive the imperial authority in Tuscany, on account of the secret
action of Naples, and not being sure of success, he with great judgment
let the matter rest, “and indemnified himself,” says Coxe, “by drawing
considerable sums from Lucca and other cities, for the confirmation and
extension of their privileges;” thus making them pay for retaining their
own rights.

The rest of Rodolph’s life was taken up in what Coxe calls “establishing
the internal tranquillity of the empire,” for which he is much lauded:
for, in doing this, he put down the power of many oppressive barons. At
one time “he condemned to death nine and twenty nobles of the most
illustrious families in Thuringia, who had broken the public peace; and
he razed in one year seventy castles and strongholds, the habitation of
banditti, or of powerful nobles worse than banditti.” He was also
“zealous to wrest from the princes those fiefs which they had
appropriated during the troubles of the war.” Coxe gives an account of
these expeditions, and the circumstances of each particular case. We
extract one paragraph, which seems to indicate that, in all this action
for the “tranquillity of the empire,” Rodolph was animated by something
else than the pure motive of saving the people from the exactions of the
barons.

“With the view of extending his influence in Switzerland, Rodolph
endeavored to gain possession of Berne, which was built by the dukes of
Zæringen, but was afterwards declared an imperial city, and during the
interregnum had obtained the protection of the house of Savoy. Under the
pretext that the Bernese had assisted the house of Savoy, and oppressed
the Jews who were fiscals of the empire, he led, in 1288, an army of
30,000 men against the city. But this great man, who had humbled the
pride of Ottocar, and depressed the powerful house of Savoy and
Burgundy, was foiled by the firmness and spirit of this rising republic;
and after an ineffectual attempt to set fire to the town, he
relinquished his enterprise. Another expedition in the following year
under his son Albert, though made with the utmost secrecy and address,
was equally frustrated; and his aggrandisement was alone effectually
checked by a petty republic, on the borders of his own territories.”

The settling of the affairs of Bohemia, which had become intolerable
through the mal-administration of Otho, the regent whom Rodolph had
appointed, seems to have been for the advantage of Bohemia, or at least
of its king; who became distracted at that time (1290) by the contest
for the throne of Charles Martel with Ladislaus, proposed nothing better
for Hungary than his conferring the investiture of it, _as a fief of the
empire_, upon his son Albert! This, it is true, resulted in nothing, as
Albert was too much occupied in settling the dissensions in his own
dominions, to make good his claims (_if claims_ they could be called);
and Andrew III. maintained himself on the throne of his grandfather, to
which the Hungarians had called him.

It was in vain that Rodolph, when he saw his end approaching, assembled
the German Diet, to choose his son Albert Emperor. He died on the 15th
of July, 1291, with this purpose unfulfilled; having been himself
Emperor nineteen years. Coxe calls his reign glorious, and closes his
memoir of him with a description of his person, and anecdotes to
illustrate his chivalric character.

It may readily be conceded that Rodolph had the noble qualities and
manners possible to his position and circumstances. But we have given
his life to be judged by another standard than that usually applied to
measure princes; a standard, however, that _his own pretensions of
serving God and His Church_[1] make an equitable one. The House of
Hapsburgh can show nothing better than the life and actions of Rodolph,
its founder, on which to ground its pretensions of divine right. Does
mankind admit the _legitimacy_ of the claim? Does the God of humanity
admit it?

At the time of the death of Rodolph, Albert, his son, was engaged in
quelling an insurrection in Austria, which he had provoked, says Coxe,
“by his stern and unconciliating manners,” and by arbitrarily conferring
the principal offices of state, and the richest heiresses in the
country, upon his Suabian followers, rather than upon the magnates of
Austria and Styria. The details of the contest it is not worth while to
relate. The end was, that he besieged Vienna, and reduced the
inhabitants by famine “to propose a surrender, when he accepted their
submission.” We always quote the words of Coxe:—“_He commanded the
principal magistrates to repair bareheaded and barefooted to his camp
with their charters, tore them in pieces with his own hands, and
abrogated all those privileges which he deemed injurious to his
authority._” He then reduced the nobles to obedience by means of the
military succour he received from Alsace and Suabia. Immediately
afterwards he put down an insurrection in Styria, by similar means and
with similar success. Albert was, however, disappointed of the imperial
crown. “His splendid talents, powerful connections, and affinity to four
of the electors, seemed to insure the possession of it; but his
arrogance and rapacity, his unconciliating manners and despotic temper,
had alienated some of the electors, while his power excited the jealousy
and alarmed the apprehension of all.”

On the election of Adolphus of Nassau he was however prudent. The
disappointment disciplined his pride to his advantage, and it was by
means of the wisdom with which he then acted for his own future
interests rather than from his present angry passions that he was
enabled to take advantage of the faults and mistakes of Adolphus, and
form a confederacy of the Electors against him, by which that Emperor
was finally ruined. On the death of Adolphus, Albert was elected. In the
meanwhile he had subdued the first confederacy formed against him by the
Helvetian Republics. The details of this war is a tissue of violence and
cruelty,[2] which was only interrupted by the general amnesty proclaimed
by Adolphus, and which Albert was too prudent to openly defy, surrounded
as he then was by enemies within and without, who would easily have been
encouraged to combine against him.

The history of Albert next details the beginning of an intrigue made
against Pope Boniface VIII., who had not confirmed his election to the
Empire. This was an alliance with Philip the Handsome, of France, with
whom Boniface was at variance. On his return from the journey Albert
made to France, at this time, 1299, to negotiate this alliance, and
confirm it by affiancing his son Rodolph to Philip’s sister Blanche, he
was induced, by the death of the Count of Holland, to turn aside and
lead an army against the Low Countries, to make good a claim which he
laid to the counties of Holland, Zealand, and Friesland, that really
belonged to John de Avesdes. But the inveterate enmity of the Pope, and
the rising discontents of the Electors of the Rhine, called him to save
his authority in the Empire. He therefore, being defeated by John de
Avesdes, concluded an accommodation, and invested him with the
territories in dispute.

The promptness and energy with which he reduced the Electors of the
Rhine opened the way to a reconciliation with the Pope, who had asserted
that there was no other sovereign or King of the Romans but the
sovereign pontiff of Christendom. It is true Boniface at first not only
refused to confirm Albert’s authority, but inveighed against him as the
murderer of Adolphus, and released the electors, vassals, and subjects
of the Empire from their oath of allegiance; yet finding himself foiled
in his attempt to shake the authority of the King of France, he changed
his policy, to detach Albert from Philip, by making overtures that
Albert was glad to meet. In short his Boniface removed, by a sovereign
act, all the irregularities of election, and declared him a faithful son
of the Church; while Albert acknowledged on his side that the right of
the electors to choose an emperor was derived from the See of Rome; and
bound himself, by oath, to defend the supremacy of the Church against
all the world; to oppose its enemies, whether kings or emperors; to
renounce the alliances which he had contracted with powers inimical to
the Holy See, and to declare war against them at the orders of Boniface
or his successors. Boniface even excommunicated the King of France, and
gave his crown to Albert! We do not know to what lengths the Pope would
have induced the emperor to go against Philip, to make good this gift,
but the latter prevented any movement by seizing Boniface violently, and
treating him so harshly that he died.

Albert was now obliged to turn his attention to matters nearer home than
the crown of France. There had long been causes of misunderstanding with
Wenceslaus, King of Bohemia, who in 1300 was elected King of Poland,
where he had previous claims on the duchies of Cracow and Sandomir by
the gift of Griffina, widow of the late duke Lesko. As his first wife,
Albert’s sister, was dead, he married the daughter of Premislaus II. of
Poland, who had died in 1296. Hardly had he obtained this new throne
than his son Wenceslaus was chosen King of Hungary, over Charobert, who
had been invested with that kingdom by Pope Boniface VIII. as a fief of
the Roman see; an interference strongly resented by the Hungarians.
Boniface had thundered a bull of excommunication against the Hungarians
on this occasion; but it being despised, and his legate expelled, he
called on Albert to support Charobert’s cause, who was also his own
nephew. Albert eagerly listened to these overtures, and laid Wenceslaus
under the ban of the empire, seconding the act by arms. The death of
Wenceslaus II. and the accession of his inexperienced and feeble son,
enabled Albert to arrange this affair in his own way; and in a few
years, the death of Wenceslaus III. without issue, awakened in him new
aspirations for power, and he prepared to transfer the crown of Bohemia
into his own family.

“Like many other kingdoms of Europe, at that period, Bohemia was
considered as an elective monarchy, though the crown was always
continued in the same line, and the eldest son was chosen or confirmed
during the lifetime of the father. Wenceslaus being the last male of the
ancient dynasty, the throne was open to different pretenders. Henry of
Carinthia became a candidate in virtue of his marriage with Anne, eldest
sister of the deceased monarch; but Albert claimed the disposal of the
crown, both as a fief of the empire, and in virtue of the compact
between Rodolph and Wenceslaus II., which entailed Bohemia on the
Austrian family, in default of issue male. He accordingly proposed his
eldest son Rodolph, who strengthened his claims by promising to espouse
Elizabeth[3], widow of Wenceslaus II., and was supported by a powerful
party of the nobles.

“The States assembled at Prague, and the votes were divided between
Henry of Carinthia, and Rodolph of Austria. The sisters of the late king
came barefooted into the assembly, and supplicated with tears for Henry
of Carinthia; but their entreaties were disregarded, and Rodolph was
chosen on the 1st of April, 1306. Accompanied by his father, and at the
head of a considerable force, he entered Prague in triumph, and
fulfilled his promise of marrying the widowed queen. At the same time
Albert obtained the formal renewal of the compact, which seemed to
insure the succession of his own family.

“A mild and moderate system of conduct would have conciliated the
natives, and fulfilled the accomplishment of his wishes, but such a
conduct was not consonant to the character of Albert. By his influence
Rodolph, though naturally mild and amiable, imposed heavy taxes on his
subjects, disregarded their prejudices and customs, stripped the
churches of their costly ornaments, and prosecuted the bishop of Prague,
who remonstrated against this sacrilege. A large party of nobles broke
into open revolt, the spirit of discontent spread with rapidity, and the
whole nation seemed eager to take up arms against the Austrian
despotism. To quell these commotions, Rodolph collected an army; but
while he was besieging the fortress of Horazdovitz, he was hurried to
the grave by a dysentery, in July, 1307, at the age of twenty-two, and
before he had completed the first year of a precarious and disputed
sovereignty.

“On this event, Frederic, the second son of Albert, was proposed to the
states, who met in the episcopal palace of Prague. When Tobias of
Bechnia, a nobleman of high rank, named Frederic of Austria, the
assembly exclaimed, “We will have no Austrian king!” Bechnia tauntingly
observing, “You will perhaps again choose a peasant from the village of
Staditz, and marry him to the widowed queen,” a tumult arose; the most
violent drew their sabres; Bechnia, with two others of the Austrian
party were massacred, and Henry of Carinthia raised to the throne by
unanimous acclamation.

“The haughty spirit of Albert, affected with the loss of Bohemia, was
still more deeply wounded by the contemptuous rejection of his son. He
accordingly asserted his claims in arms, and accompanied by Frederic,
whom he declared King of Bohemia, led a powerful body of troops from
Germany into the kingdom, and laid siege to Kuttenberg and Colin. But
the approach of winter, the desultory attacks of the Bohemian forces,
the obstinate resistance of the garrisons, and the severity of the
season, at length compelled him to retire. He did not, however
relinquish his object, but placing garrisons in Königsgratz, and other
fortified towns, which had been yielded to him by Elizabeth, drew his
troops into Austria, and determined to return in spring with a still
more powerful army.

“Albert had availed himself of the short interval during which his son
held quiet possession of Bohemia, to support the pretensions of his
nephew Charles of Naples, in opposition to Otho of Bavaria, who was
lineally descended from Bela IV., and had been raised to the throne of
Hungary by the anti-papal party in 1306. He entered Hungary with a
considerable army, but did little more than devastate the country, till
he was called to defend his own territories against an irruption of the
Hungarians.

“He likewise engaged in a war for the possession of Misnia and
Thuringia, which he endeavoured to appropriate as fiefs of the empire.

“But at this juncture the insurrection of the Swiss called his attention
to another quarter.

“Helvetia, or, as it is now called, Switzerland, at this period was
divided into small sovereignties and baronial fiefs, the imperial cities
of Zurich, Berne, Basle, and Schaffhausen, the demesnes of the church,
and the small states or cantons of Schwyz, Uri, and Underwalden, which,
though dependent on the empire, enjoyed a democratic form of government.
Among the sovereigns, the most conspicuous were the counts of Savoy, and
the house of Hapsburgh, which had considerably increased in power and
territory by the elevation of Rodolph and Albert, who, as chiefs of the
empire, possessed the right of appointing bailiffs in the imperial
cities and districts, for the purpose of administering the criminal
jurisdiction.

“At the suggestion of Albert, Rodolph seems to have formed the design of
acquiring the sovereignty of the ecclesiastical and baronial
territories, and having thus encompassed the free cities and democratic
states, either to obtain their voluntary submission, or compel the
refractory to acknowledge his authority. In consequence of this design,
Rodolph made considerable purchases, particularly of Friburgh from the
house of Kyburg, and of the town of Lucern from the abbey of Murbach,
with the seignorial rights in several villages of the district of
Schwyz. These acquisitions excited jealousies and discontent among the
natives of Uri, Schwyz, and Underwalden, and gave birth to an
association by which they bound themselves not to submit to foreign
jurisdiction. The temperate spirit of Rodolph yielded to the opposition
of a people so jealous of their liberties, and from whom he had received
such essential services; he accordingly quieted their apprehensions by a
solemn confirmation of their privileges, as head of the empire, and this
act was confirmed by Adolphus.

“Soon after the death of Rodolph, Albert manifested his intention of
appropriating or subjugating the free districts of Helvetia. The natives
of Uri, Schwyz, and Underwalden, justly apprehensive of his rapacious
character and powerful resources, held a general assembly to renew their
confederacy, and assert their independence. They also espoused the cause
of Adolphus, and assisted him with a small but chosen body of their
bravest troops. On the death of Adolphus, and the election of Albert, a
general panic spread through all the people of the Alps; and their
alarms were increased by the declaration of Albert to their deputies,
who requested him, as chief of the empire, to confirm their privileges,
that he intended to propose an alteration in their government.

“Before, however, he attempted to subjugate these brave and spirited
people, he increased his influence and acquisitions in Switzerland. He
pacified the citizens of Zurich by confirming their privileges, obtained
the advocacies of the abbeys of St. Gallen and Einsidlin, demolished the
castles of the petty lords in the district of Glarus, who had adhered to
Adolphus, and by purchase and intrigue, acquired the supreme authority
in various parts, from the lake of Thun, to the heart of the country
inhabited by the Grisons. Having thus nearly surrounded the Swiss by his
extensive domains, he summoned them to submit to his authority. His
haughty spirit was little affected by the simple answer of these free
mountaineers: “We are partial to the condition of our forefathers, and
only desire the confirmation of our privileges.” He disdained to listen
to their remonstrances, and placed over them governors, whose tyrannical
and capricious administration at length roused the natives to assert
their injured rights.

“Under the auspices of three patriots, Fürst, Melchthal, and
Stauffacher, the plan of a general insurrection was secretly formed, and
the revolution, which gave liberty to Switzerland burst forth in Uri,
Schwyz, and Underwalden, on the 13th of January, 1308. The governors
were expelled, their castles seized, and the whole people rose, as with
one accord, to defy the power of the house of Austria, and of the head
of the empire.

“Albert, confident of his superior force, rejoiced at this insurrection
as affording a pretext for subjugating the natives of a territory which
he had long coveted, postponed the intended invasion of Bohemia and
Thuringia, and was preparing to lead an army into Switzerland, when his
life and reign were closed by the hand of violence.”

The Austrian princes, Frederic and Leopold, were unquestionably
disappointed at the election of Henry of Luxembourg to the imperial
throne, instead of one of themselves; but, after some intrigues, they
concluded to accept quietly from him the investiture of their hereditary
dominions, and Leopold faithfully served the Emperor in Italy and
elsewhere. At his death there was a contested election, and both
Frederic of Austria and Louis of Bavaria were chosen. In the wars that
ensued between these rivals, Switzerland was again invaded by Leopold,
who commenced hostilities against the three Swiss cantons, who had
espoused the Bavarian party.

“Leopold seized the pretext of a dispute between the convent of
Einsidlin, of which he was advocate, and the natives of Schwyz, who had
surrounded the abbey, and seized four of the canons and the
schoolmaster, in revenge for an insult on some Swiss pilgrims. He
considered the reduction of this country as an easy task, and vain of
his military skill and superior force, boasted that he would trample the
audacious rustics under his feet. He assembled 20,000 men, and hastened
to put his threat in execution; 4,000 on the side of Oberhasli were to
pass by Mount Brunig into Underwalden; a body of 1000 from Lucern was to
make a diversion by Stantz, and he himself intended to march from Zug
with 15,000, and penetrate to Schwyz.

“The northern inlets of the country being fortified with strong
entrenchments and towers, only two passages led towards Schwyz. The
first was the pass of Art, along the foot of the crags which border the
lake of Zug, impracticable for armed cavalry; the other led through the
straits of Morgarten, about three miles in length, between the lake
Egeri and the heights rising above the village of Morgarten, from which
it derives its name.

“The Swiss, hardy and brave from their modes of life and forms of
government, disdained to submit to a foreign power, and beheld the
gathering of the storm without dismay, though with the interest due to
the importance of the cause in which they were engaged. Fourteen hundred
men, the flower of their youth, grasped their arms and assembled at the
town of Schwyz. A solemn fast being proclaimed, they passed the day in
religious exercises and chanting hymns and kneeling down in the open
air, petitioned “the God of heaven and earth to listen to their lowly
prayers, and humble the pride and arrogance of their enemies.” By the
advice of an experienced veteran they took post on the heights of
Morgarten, and with the same spirit which had animated the Greeks at the
strait of Thermopylæ, waited the approach of the enemy. Fifty outlaws
also, who had been expelled from Schwyz, petitioned the magistrates that
they might share the danger of the day with their countrymen; and,
though rejected, occupied an eminence commanding the entrance of the
pass.

“At the dawn of the morning (November 16.) the Austrians were seen
advancing in all the pomp of war, and flushed with the hope of certain
conquest. The cavalry, on whom the warriors of that day placed their
principal reliance, armed from head to foot, led the way, and were
followed by the infantry in a compact body. When they began to fill the
strait, and stretch along the borders of the lake, the fifty exiles
raised a sudden shout, and hurled among them huge blocks of timber,
heaps of stones, and fragments of rock. This unexpected assault threw
the column into confusion; and the confederates perceiving the
impression, rushed down from the heights, and charged the enemy in close
array with their clubs, halberts, and pikes. Cramped by the narrowness
of the defile, the Austrians were unable to make any evolution, and
their embarrassment was increased by the effects of a hoar frost. Many
of the horse leaped into the lake, and the remainder recoiled on their
infantry, who, unaware of the attack, and unable to open their files,
were run over, dispersed, or trampled to death; numbers were driven into
the lake, crushed by their companions, or fell by the hands of an
enraged enemy. Not less than fifteen hundred, most of whom were nobles
or knights, were slain in the rout, and Leopold himself with difficulty
escaped under the guidance of a peasant to Winterthur, where he arrived
in the evening, gloomy, exhausted, and dismayed.

“At the close of evening the Unterwalders, apprised of the advance of
the body from Lucern, embarked with a hundred Swiss on the lake, and
landing at Buchs, attacked and dispersed the enemy. Notwithstanding the
exertions of this arduous day, the victorious troops, joined by a few of
their countrymen, hastened to Alpnach, where the four thousand had taken
a strong position. The Austrians, beholding the victorious banners of
the Swiss, and hearing the shouts of exultation, were panic struck, and
began to retreat; but were attacked by the confederates, and,
notwithstanding the exertions of their commander, driven back in
disorder over the mountains towards Lucern.

“The three cantons in a public assembly declared the anniversary of this
day, ‘in which the God of Hosts had visited his people, and given them
the victory over their enemies,’ a solemn festival, and ordered the
names and heroic deeds of those champions, who had fallen in defence of
their country, to be annually recited to the people. They also rendered
perpetual their ancient league, which had hitherto been renewed every
tenth year, and obtained a confirmation of their confederacy from the
head of the empire.”

We omit the rest of the history of these two brothers, on account of
their too great complication with the interests of other princes,
including the Pope, who pursued their objects with the same recklessness
of the welfare of the countries which were the theatre of the disputes,
that is the ever continued course of the House of Austria, and with no
shadow of a better purpose than family aggrandisement, ever manifested
by every one of them, whether in peace or war.

They both died before 1330, leaving their younger brothers, Albert II.
and Otho, heads of the family, who immediately concluded peace with the
Emperor Louis. Hardly was this effected before we find the brothers
engaged in war for the succession of Carinthia and the Tyrol. Being
invested with both by Louis, they took forcible possession of Carinthia,
but were obliged to renounce the Tyrol, so effectually were they opposed
by its nobles and magistrates.

“While Albert was thus on the whole extending his possessions, and
consolidating his power on the side of Austria his paternal domains and
influence in Switzerland were curtailed by the three petty republics of
the Alps, who had already resisted the efforts and humbled the pride of
his house.

“At the commencement of their administration, Albert, in conjunction
with his brother Otho, had made considerable acquisitions in the
neighborhood of the Rhine; they had obtained possession of Schaffhausen,
Rheinfelden, and Brisach; and had purchased from the House of
Lauffenburgh the feudal rights over the town and country of
Rapperschwyl. By these acquisitions, and by the extent of their paternal
inheritance, the Austrian princes almost surrounded and isolated the
three republics: they possessed nearly the whole of that part of the
canton of Berne which is now called the Argau; they were masters of the
Thurgau; they held the sovereignty of Zug and Lucern, including the
Entlibuch, and the towns of Sempach and Reichensee; and, as advocates of
the abbeys of Einsidlin and Seckingen, their authority was paramount in
the district to the south of the lake of Zurich, and over the town and
canton of Glarus.

“By the death of Otho, and of his two sons, who deceased in 1344, the
whole possessions and power of the House of Austria devolved on Albert.
But he was at first too much embarrassed in contests on the side of
Austria and the empire to give the necessary attention to the affairs of
Helvetia, where a concurrence of events had begun to diminish the
authority of his family.

“Since the battle of Morgarten, the power and influence of the Swiss had
increased with their success; and the spirit of that liberty which they
had so courageously defended was diffused over the neighboring Alps, and
among the towns and districts on the borders of Germany. The surrounding
people were eager to obtain an exemption from feudal despotism; and
panted for an equal participation of those rights which had raised the
three democratic cantons to such reputation and prosperity. Lucern set
the first example. In consequence of the unceasing disputes and contests
between the Austrian feudatories and the confederated republics, Lucern
was exposed to perpetual inroads; her commerce to Italy was interrupted,
her fairs deserted, and her citizens, continually under arms, were
unable to protect their territories from depredations, or their walls
from insult. In these depressing circumstances the flower of her youth
was summoned to the field under the Austrian standard, her citizens
loaded with excessive contributions, and, the authority of the Austrian
princes being supported by the nobles, the town was agitated with
discordant factions. At length the majority of the burghers obtained
from the emperor Louis the protection of the empire, and with his
approbation concluded an armistice of twenty years with the Swiss
cantons. The nobles applied to the baron of Ramschlag, the Austrian
castellan of Rotenburgh, who advanced with a body of 300 horse to
surprise the town; but this project being defeated by the vigilance and
firmness of the burghers, many of the Austrian partisans retired, and
the remaining inhabitants entered into an alliance with the Swiss
cantons. In forming this alliance, however, both parties observed the
most rigid dictates of justice, and confirmed all the rights and
prerogatives of the House of Austria. Albert and Otho, failing in their
attempts to recover Lucern by intrigue or arms, took advantage of their
reconciliation with Louis, and solicited him to dissolve the alliance of
Lucern with the Swiss cantons. The cause was accordingly submitted to
arbitrators, selected from Zurich, Berne, and Basle: but the confederacy
was confirmed, and a truce for thirty months concluded between the dukes
of Austria and Lucern, which was renewed at different intervals.

“The four cantons, which, from this period, are called the four Forest
Cantons, took an active share in the subsequent transactions, and, after
vindicating their own independence, assisted in extending and
maintaining the liberty of the neighboring towns and districts, who
sought their alliance and protection.

“Zurich next became a member of the Helvetic confederacy. The House of
Austria had more than once endeavoured in vain to annex Zurich to their
other territories; and in the peace of Hagenau, it was one of the four
imperial towns mortgaged by the emperor to Albert and Otho. But the
inhabitants claiming the privilege granted to them by Adolphus, of never
being separated from the empire, Louis yielded to their remonstrances,
and instead of Zurich ceded Brisach, a town of the Brisgau. The Austrian
princes, however, did not relinquish their purpose, and gained a
considerable party of the nobles, who had gradually acquired the
principal share in the administration of affairs. But their views were
thwarted by a revolution which annihilated the influence of the nobles,
and established a popular form of government; and Rodolph Brun, by whose
influence and intrigues this revolution was effected, under the title of
perpetual burgomaster, secured the chief authority. The nobles who
opposed the change were driven into exile, their estates confiscated,
and the severest measures were adopted to prevent the restoration of the
ancient government. The tyrannical proceedings of Brun having excited
great discontents, the exiles united with John of Hapsburgh, lord of
Rapperschwyl, who had afforded them an asylum, to recover their lost
ascendancy. In 1351 they succeeded in introducing a considerable body of
men into the town; but at midnight, when the explosion was about to take
place, the plot was accidentally discovered. The conspirators were put
to death, or dispersed; and John of Hapsburgh, with Ulrich of
Bonstetten, the two leaders, made prisoners. Many of their adherents
among the burghers were afterwards executed; and the authority of Brun
was more firmly established than ever. He led a party against
Rapperschwyl, made himself master of the town, expelled the inhabitants,
levelled every house to the ground, and demolished the walls of the
castle; but, aware that these proceedings would expose him to the
vengeance of Albert, he saw no other resource than the protection of the
Swiss cantons, and succeeded in procuring the admission of Zurich into
the Helvetic confederacy, which took place on the 7th of May, 1351.

“Albert, at length relieved from his embarassments in Germany, hastened
to recover his declining authority. He assembled at Bruck all his
governors, barons, and magistrates, from the Thurgau, Argau, Alsace, the
Black Forest, and Suabia, and roused their indignation by expatiating on
the flagitious conduct of Zurich. He then summoned the deputies of
Zurich, who came to congratulate him on his arrival, into his presence,
and, after rebuking them with severity, dismissed them with an order
that the towns of old and new Rapperschwyl should be rebuilt, the
marshes restored, and his people indemnified for their losses. On the
refusal of the burghers to comply with these conditions, he invested the
town with 16,000 men.

“On the first appearance of danger, the people of Zurich applied to the
Forest Cantons, and a body of Swiss prepared to march, without delay, to
the assistance of their new ally. The burghers, however, panic struck
with the force and menaces of the Austrians, requested an arbitration to
arrange the dispute, and yielded sixteen hostages as pledges for the
fulfilment of the award. The arbitrators chose Agnes, queen of Bohemia,
the sister of Albert, as final umpire, who decided in favour of her
brother. A treaty was accordingly concluded; but a dispute arising in
regard to the release of John of Hapsburgh, and the Swiss disapproving
the conditions, both parties had again recourse to arms.

“Among his allies, Albert summoned the people of Glarus to his standard;
but these husbandmen, who were animated with the same spirit as their
Alpine neighbours, refused to obey the summons; and when he despatched a
body of troops, as well to awe them into compliance as to annoy the
Forest Cantons, the Swiss, bursting in the depth of winter into the
valley, were joyfully received by the inhabitants, and expelled the
governor. The people, grateful for this deliverance, entered into a
treaty of alliance with the Forest Cantons, and 200 of their bravest
youth marched to the defence of Zurich. At the commencement of the
ensuing year they repulsed and defeated with great slaughter an Austrian
force in the field of Rutly, and soon after this event Glarus was
formally admitted into the Helvetic confederacy. In a similar manner the
Swiss expelled the Austrians from Zug, and the natives of that town and
district were received into the confederacy; the two cantons however did
not yet throw off their feudal subjection to the house of Austria, but
reserved, in their full latitude, all the rights and revenues of the
duke.

“During these transactions, four thousand Austrian troops had been
defeated by fifteen hundred burghers of Zurich, at Tatwyl, and a corps
of a thousand by forty-two Swiss at Kussnacht. Albert, unwilling to
continue this predatory warfare, in which all the advantage lay on the
side of the active and light-armed peasants of the Alps, and which
dispirited his own troops while it increased the courage and skill of
the enemy, collected from all quarters an army sufficient, as he
imagined, to humble the confederates by a single effort. He drew out the
whole force of his own hereditary dominions, and persuaded the nobles of
Burgundy, Suabia, and Helvetia that their interests were equally
concerned in punishing refractory subjects, and checking the progress of
the Helvetic union; he likewise succeeded in obtaining the support of
the elector of Brandenburgh, and many other princes of the empire; and
was assisted even by the republic of Berne, and its allies of Oberland,
Hasli, and the Pays de Vaud. Having in 1352 assembled 30,000 foot, and
4000 horse he intrusted the command to an experienced warrior, Everhard,
count of Wirtemberg, who laid siege to Zurich. Albert himself was
indefatigable in forwarding the siege, and either on a litter, or on
horseback, assiduously visited and encouraged the different posts; but
the invincible spirit of the burghers, assisted by a corps of the
confederates, baffled all his efforts. In consequence of an alarming
scarcity of provisions, his auxiliaries successively retired, and Albert
at length gladly accepted an accommodation, which was concluded by the
intervention of the elector of Brandenburgh, with the plenipotentiaries
of the confederates assembled at Lucern. All prisoners, conquests, and
hostages were to be restored on both sides; the prerogatives and
revenues of the duke in Lucern, Schwyz, and Underwalden were to be
preserved; Zug and Glarus agreed to render him due allegiance; and the
duke in return promised to be their friend. The confederates were to
conclude no alliance with an Austrian town or country; Zurich and Lucern
were to admit no Austrian subject into their burghership; John of
Hapsburgh was to be released; and all former alliances, immunities, and
established regulations to remain inviolate.

“The signal proofs of spirit, valor, and perseverance, displayed by the
confederates in this arduous and apparently unequal contest, increased
their former reputation; and before the close of 1352, their union was
strengthened by the accession of Berne, the most powerful republic in
Helvetia, which, by purchase or arms, had enlarged her frontiers, and
acquired a considerable domain; but was still more formidable from the
military skill and prowess of her warlike citizens.

“The treaty which Albert, from his necessities rather than from
inclination, had concluded with the confederate cantons, was a
suspension of arms instead of a solid peace; for disputes soon arose
relative to the interpretation of the articles. Albert insisted that the
engagements of Glarus and Zug to pay him due allegiance dissolved their
alliance with the Swiss cantons; and the Swiss urged that the article in
which the maintenance of all former alliances was stipulated
comprehended the Helvetic union. Albert had recourse to the mediation of
the emperor, who was anxious to compose the troubles of the empire, that
he might receive the crown from the hands of the Pope at Rome. Charles
repaired to Zurich, and endeavoured to effect an accommodation; but as
he displayed an evident partiality in favour of Albert, the Swiss
cantons declared their resolution to reject any award before their
confederacy was acknowledged; and at the same time they tendered a
compensation for the ducal prerogatives, which was to be fixed by the
emperor. Charles, irritated by this mark of disrespect, declared the
Helvetic union null and void, and all confederacies illegal, which were
formed without the consent of the head of the empire.

“In consequence of the unshaken resolution displayed by the Swiss, an
Austrian force passed the Glatt, and fortified Rapperschwyl, which
Albert had purchased from the house of Lauffenburgh; and from that
central post annoyed both the Swiss and the town of Zurich. Soon
afterwards Charles himself summoned the contingents of the empire, and,
accompanied by all his princes, spiritual and temporal, joined the army
of Albert, which was encamped before Zurich. But the hopes of Albert
were again frustrated; the garrison, though amounting to only four
thousand men, were all animated by the same undaunted spirit; while the
heterogeneous and unwieldy mass of the besieging army was agitated with
disputes and jealousies. The imperial cities were unwilling to assist in
reducing another city of the empire; the princes and states were jealous
of the increasing power of Austria, and averse to enforce the maxims
promulgated by Charles, that all confederacies were illegal which were
concluded without the consent of their chief; Charles himself also was
disinclined to support so unpopular a cause, and to waste his time in
aggrandising a family, of which he dreaded the ascendancy. A frivolous
dispute about precedence in the assault afforded a pretext for retiring;
the besiegers struck their tents, and withdrew in such haste and
disorder that, according to the expressions of an ancient chronicle,
none knew who went first, or who last, and Albert was left to prosecute
the war with his own forces.

“Albert, thus deserted, changed his plan of operations, devastated the
country in the neighbourhood of Zurich, and let loose a lawless band of
Hungarian auxiliaries, who, like the Croats and Pandours of modern
times, committed the most horrible excesses, and spared neither friend
nor foe. At length his own subjects, and the neighbouring barons,
harassed and exhausted with perpetual depredations, unanimously
clamoured for peace, and testified a resolution to terminate
hostilities, even without his consent. Albert was reduced to make
overtures of accommodation, and admitted, at the diet of Ratisbon, that
the reservation of the Swiss league should be a preliminary of the
future award, which was left to the decision of the emperor. He
endeavoured, however, to gain by artifice what he could not effect by
force. At his instigation the emperor drew up articles of accommodation,
containing an ambiguous clause, which virtually annulled the alliance,
and would have ultimately again subjected Zug and Glarus to the
domination of the house of Austria. With this view the Austrian
commissaries, instead of presenting the instrument to a general assembly
of the confederates, endeavoured to divide them, and to extort their
separate concurrence. Brun, bribed by Albert, exerted his powerful
influence; and Zurich, which had been the principal cause of the war,
not only ratified the imperial award, but entered into a defensive
alliance with Austria, to enforce the execution even against the
confederates.

“The people of Schwyz, however, refused to ratify the obnoxious clause,
and resisted with firmness and indignation the urgent representations of
Albert, and the mandates of the emperor. Nor did their firmness forsake
them on the arrival of an Austrian commissary to demand the homage of
Zug and Glarus, although Zurich remained neuter, and even Lucern, Uri,
and Underwalden seemed inclined to shrink from the contest. A body of
troops marched from Schwyz under the banner of their forefathers, which
had triumphed at Morgarten, entered the two cantons, drove out the
Austrian commissary, and renewed the reciprocal engagements of perpetual
amity and mutual defence.

“At length Albert, worn out with age, afflicted by the increase of his
paralytic disorder, which was aggravated by arthritic complaints, and
the disappointment of his hopes, returned in disgust to Vienna, where he
fell into such a state of despondency, that the very name of a Swiss was
never mentioned in his presence. His son Rodolph, who was intrusted with
the administration of the Suabian territories, agreed to an armistice of
eleven years, which was mediated by the baron of Thorberg, the Austrian
commissary in Helvetia, and thus terminated a ruinous and fruitless
contest.

“This event was soon followed by the decease of Albert, who died on the
16th of August, 1358, after a reign of twenty-eight years.”

The successor of Albert II. was his son Rodolph IV., who had a fancy for
antiquities; a fancy made important by his undertaking to assume all the
titles which had ever pertained to his family, among the rest that of
the Archduke Palatine; but the most important acquisition that marked
his own reign was that of the Tyrol, ceded by Margaret Maultasch, whom
he had laid under obligation to himself, by procuring from the Pope the
legitimation of her son Meinhard. He also obtained various advantages in
a contest with the patriarch of Aquilea; but, in the midst of his
attempts to aggrandise his family, he died untimely, aged 26, in 1365.

As his brother Frederic had died immediately before this time, the
administration of the family interests fell upon a younger brother,
Albert III., who was only seventeen years of age. He also had a brother
Leopold, two years younger than himself, and it was his ambition that
divided the hitherto united territories of the family. With the sanction
of the Emperor, Leopold II. took possession of all the provinces except
Austria, and he then proceeded to add to his possessions from the world
without. He succeeded in getting Trieste by taking part with Francis of
Carrara against the Venetians, but he was disappointed of his hopes of
procuring the crown of Poland for his son William, and he sunk into a
depression of spirits which incapacitated him for bodily or mental
exertion. “He neglected the administration of affairs, and his bailiffs
and feudal chiefs, who were freed from his control, were guilty of great
tyranny and excessive exactions. Symptoms of discontent soon broke out
in Suabia, of which Leopold was imperial bailiff; above forty of the
towns renewed the confederacy which they had formerly established
against the oppressions of the princes and nobles, and were joined by
Strasburgh, Mentz, and the principal cities on the Rhine. To strengthen
their league, and to secure allies in the heart of the Austrian
possessions, they sought the accession of the Helvetic confederates,
whom they considered as the enemies of the House of Austria, from
prejudice, interest, and situation.

“Many causes of misunderstanding had contributed to aggravate the
natural jealousy between the House of Austria and the Helvetic states.
Leopold had evinced an inclination to recover the authority of his
ancestors, and had recently shackled the commerce of the Forest Cantons
and Zurich, by the imposition of additional tolls at Rapperschwyl and
Rotemberg; he had likewise taken part in a contest between Berne and a
collateral branch of the family of Hapsburgh. The interference of
Leopold in this instance disgusted the confederates, and Berne, Zurich,
and Zug, with the town of Soleure, joined the union of the Suabian
cities, and warmly solicited the accession of the other cantons.

“Alarmed with this formidable league, Leopold roused himself from his
lethargy, and repaired to Zurich, pacified the people of Schwyz, by
abolishing the tolls imposed at Rapperschwyl, and by their means gained
the three other Forest Cantons; he also conciliated the burghers of
Zurich, and detached them from the confederacy. He then appeased the
discontents in Suabia, by repressing the exactions of the bailiffs, and
by threats and promises dissolved the league of the cities on the Rhine.
During these events he had smoothed and _amused the Swiss by offers of
perpetual peace, and splendid promises_, but having pacified the
imperial cities, he became less compliant, and his governors and
bailiffs renewed their oppressions. The inveterate aversion which the
Swiss people had fostered against the Austrian family again revived, and
a trifling dispute soon occasioned an open rupture. Leopold had pledged
the castle and town of Wolhausen, with the Entlibuch, to Peter of
Thorberg, and Rotemberg to Herman of Graunberg. These lords oppressing
the inhabitants, the latter, instead of appealing to the duke their
sovereign, sent their deputies to seek the protection of Lucern, and
were admitted into the co-burghership. The citizens of Lucern, also, who
were aggrieved by imposition of heavy tolls at Rotemberg, seized this
opportunity to attack and raze the castle and the walls of the town;
and, instead of giving satisfaction for the outrage, admitted into their
burghership the Entlibuch, with the Austrian towns of Sempach and
Richensee.

“Leopold, irritated by the defection of his subjects and the loss of his
territories, was still further exasperated by the clamors of the
neighboring princes and nobles, who, being _alarmed lest their vassals
should follow the example of those of Austria_, offered to assist in
crushing so dangerous a confederacy. Both parties prepared for
hostilities; and although Berne declined engaging in the contest, and
the Suabian cities refused their assistance, Zurich, Zug, and the three
Forest Cantons, armed in defence of Lucern. A desultory but sanguinary
warfare took place; the confederates anticipated their enemies by razing
the castles of Wolhausen, Meyenburgh, and Caffenberg, and placed
garrisons in Sempach and Richensee; and, on the other side, the
Austrians having recovered Richensee, sated their vengeance by
demolishing the town, and putting the inhabitants to the sword, without
distinction of sex or age.

“The crisis now rapidly approached, and twenty successive messengers
arrived in one day, with the declarations of war from different lords
against the confederates. Leopold soon collected a considerable army at
Baden, and detached John de Bonstetten with a corps to Bruck, as if he
meditated an attack on Zurich; but his views were in reality directed to
penetrate by Sempach and Rotemberg, and make himself master of Lucern.
The Forest Cantons, deceived by his dispositions, at first despatched
1,400 men for the defence of Zurich; but, being apprised of his plan,
they prevailed on the burghers to undertake their own defence; and the
greater part of the auxiliaries crossing the Reuss, directed their march
towards Sempach. In their progress they were joined by bodies from
Glarus, the Entlibuch, and the villages through which they passed, and
on the 9th of July, 1396, arriving at Sempach, took post in the woods
which skirt the lake and crown the neighboring eminences, with a force
of only 1,300 men.

“On the evening of the preceding day, Leopold had occupied Sursee, and
early in the morning advanced with a corps of 4000 horse and 1,400 foot,
with the hope of surprising Sempach. Confident of success, his troops
rode up to the walls, and insulted the citizens with taunts and threats.
One held up a halter, exclaiming, ‘This is for your Avoyer!’ and others,
alluding to the stragglers who were lying waste the fields, cried, ‘Send
a breakfast to the reapers.’ The burgomaster, pointing to the woods,
replied, ‘My masters of Lucern, and their allies, will bring it.’

“The duke, surprised at the appearance of the confederates, instantly
held a council of war, to decide whether the attack should be postponed
till the arrival of the other forces. But the nobles unanimously
exclaimed, ‘God has delivered these peasants into our hands; it would be
shameful, armed as we are, to wait for succors against an ill-armed and
almost naked rabble.’ The baron de Hasenberg, an experienced veteran,
who had often witnessed the prowess of the Swiss, in vain represented
the folly of despising the enemy, expatiated on the uncertainty of the
fortune of war, and urged the duke to wait the arrival of Bonstetten.
But his prudence only drew from the younger knights the censure of
cowardice: one of them, calling him a hare in heart, as in name, turned
to the duke, and exultingly said, ‘This very noon we will deliver up to
you this handful of rustics.’ His petulancy was received with applause,
and preparations were made for an immediate attack.

“As the horses were fatigued by the march, and the woods were
impracticable for cavalry, the knights dismounted, ordered the foot into
the rear, and formed themselves into a solid and compact body. At this
moment the Swiss, according to their custom, threw themselves on their
knees, and with uplifted hands, implored the assistance of the Most
High. Some of the Austrians observing this action, exclaimed, ‘They are
supplicating for pardon!’ but they were soon undeceived, for the
confederate troops instantly quitted the woods, and with shouts and
exclamations poured down into the plain. A few only were in armour; some
brandished the halberts which their forefathers had wielded at
Morgarten; others bore two-handed swords and battle-axes, and instead of
shields, wore boards fastened to their left arms; the Austrian host, on
the contrary, covered from head to foot with blazing armour, presented a
solid range of shields, and a horrent front of projecting spears.

“The Swiss drew up in the form of a wedge, and rushed with their usual
impetuosity to the attack, but made no impression on this formidable
phalanx; the banner of Lucern was exposed to imminent danger, and the
landamman, with sixty of their most adventurous warriors, fell before a
single enemy received a wound. They hesitated for a moment, regarding
their enemies with a mixture of indignation and despair; while the
flanks of the phalanx advancing in a crescent, endeavoured to close on
their rear. At this awful crisis, Arnold de Winkelried, a knight of
Underwalden, bursting from the ranks, exclaimed ‘I will open a passage
into the line; protect, dear countrymen and confederates, my wife and
children!’ Then throwing himself on the enemy, he seized as many pikes
as he could grasp, and burying them in his bosom, bore them by his
weight to the ground. His companions rushed over his expiring body, and
forced themselves into the heart of the line, others with equal
intrepidity penetrated into the intervals occasioned by the shock, and
the whole unwieldy mass was thrown into confusion and dismay. The
knights, oppressed with their ponderous armour, and incumbered with
their long spears, were unable to withstand the impetuous assault of the
Swiss, or to recover from their disorder; and their servants, perceiving
the general consternation, mounted the horses of their masters, and left
them no hope of safety by flight. The fight was for a while sustained by
the efforts of personal valour, and the undaunted spirit of chivalry;
but the havoc soon became general; numbers fell by the sword of the
enemy; many perished by the pressure of their companions and the intense
heat, and not less than 2,000, of whom almost one third were counts,
barons, and knights, were numbered among the slain.

“Two hundred only of the confederates fell in this memorable battle,
among whom were their most distinguished chiefs. Fatigued with
slaughter, and the excessive heat, they did not pursue the fugitives;
but returned their usual thanksgiving to Heaven on the field, and the
following day agreed to an armistice for burying the dead. The remains
of Leopold and twenty-seven of his most illustrious followers were
conveyed to the abbey of Königsfelden, and the bodies of the lords of
Argau were deposited in the tombs of their ancestors. Those of inferior
note were buried on the spot; the two hundred confederates received
funeral honours at Lucern, and as at Morgarten a solemn anniversary was
established in commemoration of the victory.

“The defeat of Leopold and the battle of Sempach did not terminate the
war, or depress the courage of the Austrian princes and their allies;
for six days after the battle, not less than fifty nobles, among whom
was the burgrave of Nuremberg, the archbishop of Mentz, and the bishop
of Bamberg, sent declarations of war to the victorious confederates; and
Leopold, second son of the late duke, though scarcely fifteen, hastened
to superintend the preparations, to avenge the death of his father, and
retrieve the honour of his family. A desultory war was continued in
various parts of Helvetia; the Swiss, encouraged by their astonishing
success, prosecuted hostilities with spirit and vigour, and by the
accession of Bern, acquired additional strength. The important post of
Wesen on the lake of Wallenstadt, which commanded the passes into the
cantons of Glarus, and cut off the communication with Zurich, was
surprised and garrisoned by the Swiss; and the men of Gaster and
Sargens, subjects of Austria, accepted the protection of Glarus. The
citizens of Bern repelled the aggressions of the people of Kyburgh, who
had continued invariably attached to their sovereigns, and took several
forts in the vicinity belonging to the vassals of the House of Austria.
The sons of the deceased Leopold being dispirited by these reverses,
distressed for the means of supporting the war, and weakened by the loss
of their principal nobility at the battle of Sempach, concluded an
armistice of eighteen months.

“During this interval of tranquillity, both parties employed their
efforts in fortifying and securing the strong places, and preparing for
the renewal of hostilities. The people of Glarus acknowledged the
supreme authority of the abbess of Seckingen, and the rights of the
family of Austria, as advocates of that abbey; but emulating the example
of the Swiss, they established regulations which greatly reduced their
power and influence. The innovation displeased the Austrian princes, and
the truce was scarcely expired, before they renewed hostilities, and
directed their principal efforts against Glarus. Early in the spring of
1388 their troops surprised the town of Wesen, massacred the garrison,
and in April an army of 8000 men, commanded by the count of Tockenburgh,
forced the intrenchments which protected the frontier, and devastating
the country with fire and sword, penetrated as far as Naefels. Here only
350 men of Glarus, with 50 of Schwyz, who had crossed the mountains by
night, waited their approach, on the hill of Ruti. Despising so
inconsiderable a body, part of the Austrian troops dispersed themselves
to plunder, and burnt Naefels; the remainder attacked the Swiss, and
experienced the same fate as their forefathers at Morgarten. The Swiss
hurled down on them large stones and fragments of rock, and having
thrown the horse into confusion, rushed from the heights, and attacked
them with their characteristic impetuosity. At this critical juncture,
the mountains resounded with shouts of exultation, and a band of
warriors descending from the Upper Valley, assailed the Austrians,
already in confusion. Seized with a panic, they fled in all directions,
and were pursued by the assailants with redoubled ardor; many were slain
in the flight, and more drowned in the lake of Wallenstadt, by the
breaking of the bridge of Wesen. One hundred and eighty knights, and two
thousand soldiers perished in the conflict, or the flight; and eleven
banners, with a thousand suits of armor, were preserved as trophies of
the victory. The conquerors, after their customary devotions, passed the
night on the field of battle, and advancing the next morning, sacked and
burnt Wesen.

“The troops of Zurich, which had assembled too late for the succor of
Glarus, joined the victors, and besieged Rapperschwyl: on the other
side, Berne took the Austrian towns of Nidau, Buren, and Unterseven, and
extended her conquest as far as Bruck, and the valley of Frick on the
Rhine. The counts of Tockenburgh made a separate peace with the Swiss;
and at length the dukes of Austria, apprehensive of the defection of the
Thurgau, which was agitated with discontents, and dreading the loss of
the Argau, which was threatened by the arms of Berne and Zurich, engaged
in wars and troubles on the side of Austria, and disunited by family
quarrels, concluded, in 1388, a truce for seven years. The Swiss were to
maintain their alliances, and preserve their possessions during the
continuance of the truce, with all their conquests, except Wesen; the
dukes of Austria agreed to establish no fresh tolls or imposts, and the
confederates were not to admit any subjects of Austria, not residing
within their boundaries, into their co-burghership. Future disputes were
to be adjusted by arbitration.

“This trace was prolonged in 1394, for twenty years, at the request of
Leopold, who had succeeded to the dominions of his father in Helvetia;
and on this occasion he renounced all claims to the conquests of the
confederates, promised not to fortify Wesen, limited the contributions
of Zug and Glarus, and confirmed their league with the Swiss, together
with that of Entlibuch, and Sempach with Lucern.”

The children of Albert II. and Leopold II. made no additions to the
family territories. But the consequences of the division of these
territories between the two branches of the family were frightful for
the Austrians.

“Both parties, by a species of legal tyranny, sated their vengeance and
avidity with the treasures and lives of their opponents, and alternately
sacrificed the adherents of each other as they gained the ascendancy.
The nobles availed themselves of these contests to indulge the spirit of
misrule and licentiousness, which had been repressed by the preceding
sovereigns; robbers and banditti again infested the highways, insulted
the towns and villages with impunity, and the whole country became a
scene of pillage, devastation, and carnage.

“Such was the deplorable state of Austria, till the death of Leopold in
1411, at the age of forty.”

Albert V. procured the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia, by marrying the
daughter of the Emperor Sigismond, who was also King of these nations,
and of whom he had gained the favor, by the effectual assistance he had
given him in the Hussite war. He was crowned in Hungary by the Diet,
after having promised by oath never to accept the imperial diadem. In
Bohemia he was acknowledged by the capital and by the town of
Kuttenburg; but the Hussites refused their assent, and falling back upon
the privileges of the Bohemian constitution, they sent to Poland for
Kasimir, brother of the Polish King. Albert nevertheless proceeded to
Prague, and was crowned in the cathedral by the Catholic party. Then,
assisted by some of the princes of the empire, he led an army of 30,000
men against the Hussites and Poles, and besieged Tabor.

“He would have compelled the fortress to surrender, had not George
Podiebrad, who first distinguished himself on this occasion, by a
successful sally, forced him to raise the siege, and retire to Prague,
while Uladislaus made an irruption into Silesia. Notwithstanding this
check, the margrave of Brandenburgh drove the king of Poland from
Silesia; and the auxiliary Poles, after killing their horses for food,
returned to their country on foot. In consequence of this success a
congress was held at Breslau, and a truce concluded with Uladislaus; the
Hussites agreed to a cessation of arms, and peace was once more restored
to Bohemia.

“In the midst of these conflicts, Albert was chosen king of the Romans,
as a prince who, by his extensive possessions and distinguished talents,
was most capable of allaying the dissentions of Germany, and arresting
the alarming progress of the Turks. He at first declined the proffered
dignity from a regard to his oath, but being liberated from his
engagements by the Hungarian states, and absolved by the council of
Basle, he yielded to the exhortations of his relatives and the instances
of the electors; and, though never crowned, obtained and deserved a
place among the emperors.”

Albert V. died of the dysentery, caught in an expedition against the
Turks, which he made in 1439; and a long period of distraction followed
in Austria, Bohemia, and Hungary, while his posthumous son Ladislaus was
growing up. These troubles were in 1452, somewhat composed, by the queen
mother’s giving the administration of Hungary to John Hunniades; that of
Bohemia to George Podiebrad; and that of Austria to Count Cilli; until
the young king should reach his majority. It is not within the scope of
our purpose to enter into the details of the events of this period,
rendered a brilliant page of history, by the splendid administration of
John Hunniades, and his victories over the Turks, by which he saved not
only his native Hungary, but all the rest of the dominions of Ladislaus.
Yet we can hardly resist giving the whole chapter of Coxe (XIV.), since
it shows one of those great services which Hungary did for the house of
Austria, and even for all Europe.

Ladislaus Posthumus died before his marriage, and thus one branch of the
Hapsburgh family became extinct. Within the same century the line of
Tyrol also ended with Sigismond, son of Frederic IV., fourth son of
Leopold II.

“From the circumstances of his sudden decease, and the doubtful nature
of his disorder, his death was attributed to poison, and Podiebrad was
charged with the atrocious crime. This imputation, which arose from the
reports of the Germans, and obtained credit only from the accession of
Podiebrad to the throne, has, however, been ably refuted by the Bohemian
historians, who incontestably prove that the death of Ladislaus was
occasioned by the plague.

“The reign of Sigismond is memorable in the history of the House of
Austria, for the loss of all the dominions which yet remained to his
family in Switzerland, and which were reduced to Lower Sargans, Kyburgh,
Winterthur, and Rapperschwyl. As he inherited the claims of his family
to their former territories, he naturally fostered an antipathy to the
Helvetic confederates; he was still further irritated by the loss of
Rapperschwyl, the inhabitants of which town throwing off their
allegiance, were received under the protection of Schwyz, Uri,
Underwalden, and Glarus. He therefore augmented the garrison of
Winterthur, and seemed inclined to seize the first opportunity of
attacking the confederates, when he was involved in disputes with
Nicholas de Cusa, cardinal archbishop of Brixen, for the possession of
some silver mines recently discovered at Schwartz; hostilities
commenced, but were suspended by the intervention of Pius II., who in
1460 summoned both parties before his tribunal. Before the decision of
the cause, however, the war was renewed, and Sigismond investing the
castle of Brunic, took the bishop prisoner. The pope irritated by this
contempt of his authority, fulminated a sentence of excommunication
against Sigismond, and instigated the Swiss to invade his territories.
They eagerly obeyed the summons, overran the Thurgau without opposition,
received the voluntary allegiance of the natives at Frauenfield,
besieged Winterthur, and made incursions into the Austrian territories
in the vicinity of the lake of Constance. Sigismond, unable to resist
the forces of the confederates, obtained a peace by the cession of the
conquered territories; and being stripped of the greater part of his
possessions, sold Kyburgh and Winterthur to Zurich, and thus alienated
the remnant of the Austrian inheritance in Switzerland.

“In imitation of his father, he was no sooner emancipated from his
guardians than he made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where he received
the order of Cyprus, and of the Holy Sepulchre. So eager was he to
gratify his curiosity, that he accompanied some Jew merchants, in
disguise, into the Turkish territories, examined with attention the
manners and customs of a people so different from the Christian world,
and collected jewels and other valuable curiosities. Of this pilgrimage
the celebrated Æneas Sylvius thus speaks in his oration to Pope Nicholas
V., when he was recommending a crusade against the infidels:—‘The
princes of the sublime house of Austria, which ranks among its members
many kings and emperors, deemed themselves secure of success only when
they served the Supreme Being with fidelity and constancy. Frederic,
following their example, was no sooner delivered from the care of his
guardians than, despising the dangers and tempests of the deep, he
repaired to Jerusalem, anxious to kiss the earth sanctified by the
footsteps of our blessed Redeemer. He visited the sepulchre of our Lord,
beheld Mount Calvary, and the palace of Pilate, and ascended the Mount
of Olives. He entered the desert; crossed the river Jordan; reached
Bethlehem; penetrated into the valley of Jehoshaphat; and, by the sight
of these sacred places, was inspired with an incredible and ardent
devotion.’

“At the age of twenty, Frederic assumed the reins of government as duke
of Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, in conjunction with his brother
Albert. On the death of his uncle Frederic of Tyrol, in 1435, he became
guardian of Sigismond, and, on the decease of the emperor Albert, was
appointed regent by the states of Austria, and guardian of Ladislaus
Posthumus.

“The imperial throne being vacant by the death of Albert II., the
electors nominated Louis landgrave of Hesse; and that prince declining
the crown, their choice unanimously fell on Frederic, as the eldest
member of his illustrious house; but he hesitated to accept a dignity,
however exalted, which was surrounded by difficulties and dangers.”

After the death of Sigismond, the house of Austria was reduced to the
Styrian line, founded by Ernest, third son of Leopold I., who was killed
at the battle of Sempach. This Ernest had married a niece of Ladislas
Jagellon, king of Poland. She was remarkable for her beauty and
accomplishments; yet, says Coxe, “historians record that Cymburga was
endowed with such masculine strength, that she could crack nuts with her
fingers, and with her hand drive a nail as far as others with a hammer!
She was the mother of several children, some of whom died in their
infancy, and from her are said to have been derived the thick lips—the
characteristic feature of the Austrian family.”

“During his continuance at Frankfort, Frederic endeavored to avail
himself of the divisions subsisting among the Swiss Cantons, to attempt
the recovery of the dominions which had been wrested from the house of
Austria. The contest which had arisen for the succession to the
Tockenburgh, had terminated unfavorably for Zurich; for Schwyz and
Glarus had gained the widow and the collateral heirs of the count, and,
by intrigue or persuasion, had finally succeeded in obtaining the
support of the other confederates; Zurich, invested and pressed on all
sides, was reduced to accept their mediation, and submit to the award of
the five remaining cantons.

“The burghers of Zurich, irritated by the loss of their territories, and
the disgrace to which they had been reduced, were eager to avenge
themselves; they sent ambassadors to Frederic to apologise for their
incursions into the county of Sargans during the war, and offered to
purchase his alliance, by restoring the county of Kyburgh. Frederic
eagerly accepted the offer; as head of the house of Austria, he
concluded an alliance with them on the very day of his coronation, and
secretly promised to assist them in recovering a part of the Tockenburgh
inheritance.

“The confederates, jealous of his intentions, and suspicious of his new
connection, required Zurich to renounce her alliance with the house of
Austria, as contrary to an article of the union, stipulating that no
connection was to be formed by any canton with other powers, except by
common consent. The refusal was the signal for war, which raged for four
years with a degree of fury and animosity which is only displayed in
civil broils; till both parties, fatigued with their exertions, and
recoiling from the enormities which they had committed, equally panted
for the termination of the contest. The dispute being submitted to
arbitration, a peace was arranged in May, 1447, between the house of
Austria, Zurich, and the other Swiss confederates. Affairs on both sides
were to be restored to the same situation as before the renewal of
hostilities; but Zurich renounced her alliance with the house of
Austria; and thus the grand principle of the Helvetic confederacy, that
no league was valid unless concluded with the consent of the other
cantons, was acknowledged and established. At the same time, arbitrators
were chosen to the dispute between the house of Austria and Basle; but
the war was prolonged by the refusal of the burghers to dismiss the
council. They at length yielded to the threats of Frederic, who menaced
them with the ban of the empire; and after various skirmishes, and the
recovery of Rheinfelden by the Austrians, an accommodation was effected
in 1449, which placed both parties in the same situation as before the
commencement of hostilities.”

The most important act of Frederic III., so far as our purpose is
concerned, was his confirmation to the family, by means of the imperial
powers of the archducal title, which had first been assumed by Rodolph
IV; and which “raised the house of Austria to a dignity only inferior to
that of the electors, and invested it with privileges greater than those
possessed by any other prince of the empire. The grant was capriciously
founded on letters patent of Julius Cæsar and Nero, and the diplomas of
Frederic I., Henry VI., and Frederic II., in favor of the Bamberg line,
confirmed by Rodolph of Hapsburgh, when he invested his two sons with
the Austrian territories. In virtue of these privileges, the archdukes
of Austria were to be considered as having obtained the investiture of
their dominions, if they did not receive it after thrice demanding it
from the emperor. They were not to be required to pass the limits of
their territories, but were to be invested within the borders of Austria
on horseback, clad in a regal mantle, wearing a ducal coronet surmounted
with the imperial diadem and cross, and holding a staff of command. The
archdukes were declared by birth privy-counsellors of the emperor, and
their territories could not be put under the ban of the empire. All
attempts against their persons were to be punished as crimes of high
treason; and they could not be challenged to single combat: they were
exempted from the necessity of attending at the diet, and from all
contributions and public charges, except the maintenance of twelve
men-at-arms for one month against the Turks in Hungary; they were
empowered to levy taxes, to grant letters of legitimation, and to create
counts, barons, and other inferior titles; in failure of issue male, the
females were to enjoy the right of succession, and in failure of heirs,
the archdukes were allowed to dispose of their territories by will. Any
lands of the empire might be alienated in their favor, and their
subjects could not be summoned out of their territories on account of
lawsuits, to give testimony, or to receive the investiture of fiefs.”

The death of Ladislaus Posthumus, of whom Frederic had been guardian,
had involved him in many disputes and contests, one of which was for the
crown of Bohemia; but this he lost in favor of the Bohemian nobleman,
George Podiebrad; another was for the crown of Hungary, to which he
urged his right as possessor of the crown of St. Stephen, that he had
had in safe keeping for eighteen years. But this also he lost to
Matthias Corvinus, although he gained a victory over him at Kormund in
Styria, for he could not follow up that advantage on account of a civil
war with his brother Albert in Austria.

“The terms which had been concluded between Frederic and Albert, for the
partition of Austria, and their joint residence at Vienna, gave rise to
disputes. Frederic soon became unpopular to the citizens, and the
haughty nobles of Austria displayed that turbulence and discontent
natural to feudal governments under an indolent sovereign. These
discontents being fomented by Albert, soon broke out into open war; and
although a temporary reconciliation was effected by the king of Bohemia,
neither party was sincerely desirous of peace; the emperor was indignant
at the restraints imposed on his authority; and the rapacity of Albert
was not gratified by his share of the Austrian possessions. Another and
more dreadful contest ensued; the whole country became a scene of
intestine discord, and the capital itself was divided into hostile
factions; the senate and the most moderate of the burghers, adhered to
the emperor; while the populace, headed by the burgomaster Hulzer, a
restless demagogue, espoused the cause of Albert.

“Frederic, alarmed for the safety of the empress, and his infant son
Maximilian, who were in the citadel, appeared before the gates at the
head of a body of Styrian horse. By his eloquence and address, he
succeeded in conciliating the most violent of his opponents, and after
an altercation which lasted three days, was admitted into the city.
Refusing, however, to accede to all the demands of the disaffected, the
populace again rose, pillaged the houses of his adherents, compelled him
to take refuge in the citadel, and after a formal declaration of war,
invested that fortress. At the same time Albert repairing to Vienna,
concluded a treaty with the insurgents, and was intrusted with the
conduct of the siege. But Frederic, though at the head of only two
hundred men, held out with great firmness, and evinced a resolution
rather to be buried under the ruins of the fortress, than surrender to
his rebellious subjects. He appealed to the states of the empire, and
when they were assembled at Nuremberg, a messenger arrived announcing
that he was reduced to only three weeks provisions. The states
displayed, indeed, a readiness to rescue him from his danger; but the
proverbial tardiness of their succours would have rendered their
resolutions ineffectual, had not Frederic been relieved by the king of
Bohemia, who promptly despatched his son with 5000 men, and followed, in
person, with an additional force of 8000. The advance of this timely
succour relieved the emperor; both parties submitted their dispute to
the arbitration of the Bohemian monarch, and the terms of an
accommodation were adjusted. Both were to liberate their prisoners;
Albert was to restore the towns, fortresses, and countries which he had
occupied, and to enjoy the government of Lower Austria for eight years,
on condition of paying the annual sum of 4000 ducats to the emperor.

“On the conclusion of this agreement, Frederic, escorted by a thousand
Bohemian horse, met his deliverer at Corn-Neuburgh; he gratefully
conferred several privileges on the kingdom of Bohemia, raised the two
sons of Podiebrad to the dignity of princes of the empire, and in
recompence to the inhabitants of Prague, who had furnished troops on
this occasion, he granted them an exemption from the tolls at Vienna,
and every part of the imperial territories.

“This accommodation was no less unavailing than former agreements; the
hatred and suspicion of the two brothers were too inveterate to be
eradicated, and the ambition of Albert too grasping to be satisfied. New
disputes arose relative to the fulfilment of the terms: Albert
endeavoured to appropriate Lower Austria, received the oath of
allegiance from the citizens of Vienna, and made preparations for the
renewal of hostilities; while Frederic procured the publication of the
ban of the empire, and the sentence of excommunication from the pope
against his brother. The pope, the princes of the empire, and the common
friends of the two brothers, interposed to terminate this unnatural
contest; but Albert rejected all offers of accommodation, and was with
difficulty persuaded to conclude even a temporary armistice. In this
interval, however, his arbitrary government and continual exactions had
alienated the citizens of Vienna, and a strong party, among whom was
even Hulzer himself, reconciled themselves with Frederic, and
endeavoured to effect his restoration. Their designs being discovered,
Albert sated his vengeance by condemning Hulzer to the scaffold, and by
confiscating the property of the disaffected. At length Frederic was
delivered from an active and turbulent rival, by the sudden death of
Albert, who expired on the 4th of December, 1463, at the moment when he
was preparing to renew hostilities.”

Frederic was engaged in other wars for personal objects with other
antagonists, as selfish in their aims as himself; although they
illustrate the family character, they do not especially illustrate our
particular subject. The most important act of his life, and most
fruitful of consequences, was his bringing about the marriage of his son
Maximilian with Mary of Burgundy.

“Before 1477, France and the house of Austria had no subject of rivalry
or jealousy, and their political interests were as distinct as their
respective dominions. But the marriage of Maximilian with the heiress of
Burgundy, entailed on the two powers an hereditary enmity, which deluged
Europe with blood for more than three centuries. This enmity arising
from jarring interests and contiguity of dominion, was rendered personal
by the rupture of the marriage of Maximilian with Anne of Brittany, and
the dismission of the archduchess Margaret; and though suspended by
treaties and temporary expedients, was continually breaking out on every
trifling occasion.

“From the time in which the house of Austria had been deprived of all
its territories in Helvetia, the Swiss confederacy had increased in
power and influence. Their union had been strengthened in 1481 by the
accession of Soleure and Friburgh. Except the Pays de Vaud, which
belonged to the house of Savoy, Neufchatel, subject to its own counts
and the Italian baillages, which were dependent on Milan, they or their
allies possessed almost the whole country which is now called
Switzerland. The Helvetic body thus becoming an important link in the
chain of European powers, their alliance was courted with much
solicitude and intrigue by the greatest potentates, and they were
induced to take an active part in the wars of the continent.

“The disputes between the house of Austria and France, for the
succession of Burgundy and the possession of Brittany, and the almost
constant hostilities to which these disputes gave rise, occasioned
earnest and repeated solicitations from the house of Austria and France
for an intimate union with the Swiss confederates. Louis XI. gained
considerable influence among the Cantons by his private largesses to the
leading men, his public subsidies, and the great privileges which he
granted to those who served in his armies and settled in France. During
the latter part of his reign, indeed, he forfeited the confidence of the
Cantons, by withholding his bounties and subsidies; but his son Charles
regained their friendship by discharging the arrears and renewing the
former connections. Maximilian, from the moment of his accession, was
likewise desirous to form an alliance with the Swiss, and to obtain a
renewal of the hereditary union; but the superior influence of France,
as well as their natural jealousy of the house of Austria, induced them
to reject all his offers.

“That part of Rhætia called the country of the Grisons, was originally a
dependency of the German empire, and subject to feudal lords, the bishop
of Coire, the abbot of Disentis, the counts of Werdenberg, Sax and
Masox, the barons of Retzuns, and the count of Tockenburgh. Towards the
middle of the fifteenth century the people emancipated themselves from
feudal jurisdiction; but their chiefs consenting to this emancipation
were suffered to retain considerable prerogatives; and thus the
government became a singular mixture of aristocracy and democracy. The
country was divided into a number of little communities under different
forms of government: a few aristocratical, others popular, and some more
democratical than even the rural cantons of Switzerland. These
communities composed three leagues, called the Grey League, the League
of God’s House, and the League of Ten Jurisdictions; and these by means
of a general diet formed one republic. The people, hardened amidst the
rugged rocks and perpetual snows of the Rhætian Alps, were a rude,
hardy, and warlike race, froward and licentious, impatient of control,
and no less distinguished from the rest of mankind by their singular
customs and manners, than by their situation and forms of government.

“The bishop of Coire, the principal member of the League of God’s House,
had been engaged in perpetual contests with the sovereigns of the Tyrol,
relative to the demarcation of the frontiers, the profits of mines and
territorial possessions; and those disputes were aggravated by rival
pretensions to the advocacy of the abbey of Munster, which had been
claimed by the sovereigns of the Tyrol. Another object of dispute was
the valley of Prettigau, which forming the intermediate link between the
Tyrol and the League of Ten Jurisdictions, was coveted by both parties.
Amidst these contrary pretensions and jarring interests, various feudal
privileges in the barony of Retzuns, a community of the League of God’s
House, and in the whole League of Ten Jurisdictions, purchased by
Sigismond, and transmitted to Maximilian, contributed to render him
obnoxious to the Grison republics. These contests with Maximilian had
overcome the jealousy which the Grisons had hitherto fostered against
the Swiss, and soon after his accession, the Rhætian leagues united with
the Swiss states in a formal confederacy, a union from which the house
of Austria experienced the most fatal effects.”

We close our mention of Frederic with an amusing anecdote, sufficiently
characteristic.

“Like his great uncle Rodolph, he was attached to the study of
antiquities and heraldry, and like him formed alphabets of mysterious
characters, and whimsical devices. A species of anagram, consisting of
the five vowels, he adopted as indicative of the future greatness of the
house of Austria, imprinted it on all his books, carved it on all his
buildings, and engraved it on all his plate. This riddle occupied the
grave heads of his learned contemporaries, and gave rise to many
ridiculous conjectures; till the _important_ secret was disclosed after
his death by an interpretation written in his own hand, in which the
vowels form the initials of a sentence in Latin and German, signifying
‘the house of Austria is to govern the whole world.’

       (Austria  Est       Imperare  Orbi         Universo. )
       (Alles    Erdreich  Ist       Oesterreich  Unterthan.)
                                               Fugger, p. 1080.”

The age of Maximilian was remarkable as the period in which the
boundaries of the nations of Europe were strongly defined. It witnessed
the union of Brittany with France; of Castille with Aragon; of Burgundy
with Austria. It was also the epoch of the union of Norway, Sweden, and
Denmark, under Margaret at Calmar; of the rise of Russia, under Ivan
Vassilevitch; of the greatest glory of Portugal, under John; of the
prosperity of Poland, under Albert; of the union of Bohemia and Hungary,
under Ladislas; of a confederacy of the Grisons and Swiss, more
especially directed against Austria; of the revival of literature and
the arts in Italy, under the fostering care of the Medici and other
merchant princes, who brought the Italian republics to their highest
point of splendour; finally, it was the acme of the Turkish power in
Europe, signalised by their taking Constantinople on the one hand, and
the beginning of decline through the sudden death of Mahomet in 1431 on
the other. But more important than all political attitudes of nations,
were the consequences of the invention of powder, and of printing. For
these peaceful events were big with a revolution, which is not even yet,
in five hundred years, fully developed, but which will unquestionably
bear the ultimate fruits in America, which was also at that epoch just
discovered.

But Maximilian did not desert the hereditary character and line of
action, to enter into the new ideas of the time. He struggled for means
to drive both Spain and France from Italy, not in order to give Italy
independence and freedom, but to revive the imperial power there; a
project he was at length compelled to abandon. But this portion of his
action belongs to the history of Austrian influence in Italy, to which
our narrative will return bye and bye, and view it as a whole.

With respect to the Reformation, Coxe observes:

“This controversy had attracted the attention of Maximilian, who was
naturally fond of bold and novel opinions, and anxious to reform the
abuses and curb the encroachments of the church. Far from opposing the
first attacks of Luther against indulgences, he was pleased with his
spirit and acuteness, declared that he deserved protection, and treated
his adversaries with contempt and ridicule. In the progress of the
dispute he was, however, gradually drawn from this favourable opinion,
and from conviction, _from pique against Frederic of Saxony for opposing
the election of his grandson_, or from a desire of conciliating the
Pope, was induced to interfere in the controversy. In a letter to Leo
X., dated August 5, 1519, he stigmatised the principles of Luther as
heretical, and alluded to his numerous and powerful supporters. He urged
the necessity of terminating these rash disputes and captious arguments,
by which the Christian church was scandalised, and offered to support
and enforce the measures which the Pope should think necessary to adopt.

“In consequence of this letter, Leo was induced to pursue more vigorous
measures: he enjoined the cardinal of Gaeta, his legate at the diet of
Augsburgh, to summon the heretic Luther in person; if he refused to
recant, to detain him in custody; and, if he did not obey the summons,
to denounce the sentence of excommunication against him and all his
protectors or adherents. At the same time Leo wrote to the elector of
Saxony, requesting him to withdraw his protection from Luther, and
promising that if not found guilty, he should be liberated and absolved.

“But at this critical moment the emperor Maximilian died, before the
papal bull could be presented to him, and the government devolved on the
elector of Saxony, as vicar of the empire. The proceedings against the
great reformer were thus suspended, and he was enabled to improve his
knowledge of the Holy Scriptures in silence and safety, to propagate his
opinions, and, by study and meditation, to prepare himself for those
hostilities against the authority of the Pope, which he had proclaimed
by his recent appeal.

“Notwithstanding the exhortatory letter of Maximilian to the Pope, he
seemed so little interested in the Lutheran controversy, that he
dissolved the diet and quitted Augsburgh two days before the arrival of
the Saxon reformer; and so rapid was the progress of that disorder which
hurried him to the grave, that he had no opportunity, had he possessed
the inclination, to interfere in the subsequent discussion.

“Although Maximilian did not illustrate his name and reign by conquest,
or even considerable acquisitions by the sword, he may justly be
considered as the second founder of the house of Austria. By his own
marriage with the princess Mary, daughter of Charles the Bold, he
secured the inheritance of the house of Burgundy; by the marriage of
Philip with Johanna he brought into his family the succession of the
Spanish monarchy, and by the intermarriage of his grandson, the archduke
Ferdinand, with Anne, daughter of Ladislaus, he entailed on his
posterity the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia. These and other vast
acquisitions which the house of Austria obtained by marriage and not by
arms, gave birth to a sarcastic epigram which has been attributed,
though perhaps erroneously, to Matthias Corvinus, the celebrated king of
Hungary:—

              Bella gerant alii, tu felix Austria _nube_;
              Nam quæ MARS aliis, dat tibi regna VENUS.

“Since the reign of Charlemagne, no sovereign united such extensive
territories and possessed such influence as Charles V., nor seemed more
likely to realise the phantom of universal monarchy, which has never
failed to fill the imagination of ambitious, or excite the apprehensions
of weak and timid princes.

“He inherited the vast domains of the Spanish monarchy, including Naples
and Sicily, and the recently discovered territories in the new world,
and the seventeen provinces of the Low Countries, with Franche Comté and
Artois, at that time the richest, most populous, and most flourishing
country in Europe. In conjunction with his brother Ferdinand, he also
succeeded to the whole possessions of the house of Austria. To these he
united the highest dignity in Europe, and although the crown of the
empire had proved a burden to weak sovereigns, in his powerful hands it
became a formidable engine for territorial acquisitions, in consequence
of numerous claims on all the surrounding districts, its extensive
jurisdiction, and the force which the influence of so powerful a prince
could still draw from the vast and heterogeneous mass of the Germanic
body.

“Sovereign of such extensive territories, endowed with the most eminent
talents, civil and military, and possessing almost universal influence
by his connections and alliances, Charles seemed born to domineer over
Europe; nor could the union of the princes and states of Germany have
secured their liberties, had not his power been weakened by the
separation of the Austrian and Spanish dominions, by his wars with
France and the Turks, and still more circumscribed by the reformation in
religion, which was commenced and perfected by the efforts and
perseverance of Luther.

“After the death of Maximilian the Austrian territories were possessed
in common by Charles and Ferdinand; but in 1521 a partition was made.
Charles ceded to his brother Austria, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola,
with their dependencies, and in the ensuing year, the Tyrol, and the
exterior provinces in Suabia and Alsace, reserving to himself only the
reversion of Brisgau and the Alsatian territories, which he afterwards
relinquished. By this cession the house of Austria was divided into two
separate and independent branches; the Spanish branch under Charles, and
the German under Ferdinand.

“As Ferdinand, soon after the partition, became king of the Romans, as
he finally succeeded to the imperial crown, it becomes necessary, for
the elucidation of the subject, not to omit the affairs of Germany under
Charles, and particularly to dwell on the rise and progress of the
Reformation, which produced such important effects to the house of
Austria and to Europe.”

Charles immediately convoked the diet of the empire, and “among the
causes enumerated by Charles for the convocation of a diet, one of the
most important was, ‘to concert with the princes of the empire effectual
measures for _checking the progress of those new and dangerous opinions,
which threatened to disturb the peace of Germany, and to overturn the
religion of their ancestors_.’

“Charles had already given evident proofs of an hostile disposition
towards the Lutheran doctrines, as well from conviction, as from a
desire of obliging the pope, and an apprehension of alienating his
subjects in Spain and the Low Countries, who were zealously attached to
the religion of their ancestors. Before his departure from Spain he had
declared his intention to suppress the new opinions, and on his arrival
in the Low Countries had permitted the universities of Louvaine and
Antwerp to burn the writings of Luther, and even supported the instances
of the pope in urging the elector of Saxony to banish him from his
territories. With these sentiments he opened the diet of Worms,
permitted the papal legates to inveigh against Luther, and proposed that
the German states should also condemn his doctrines, and commit his
writings to the flames.

“Charles, however, was astonished to find that the proscribed opinions
had taken a deep root, and spread over a great part of the empire. The
diet itself displayed an evident disposition to favour an attack on the
pretensions and exactions of the pope; and the states presented a long
list of grievances against the Roman see, of which they required the
emperor, in virtue of his capitulation, to obtain redress. In opposition
to all the remonstrances of the legates, the members of the diet, at the
instigation of the elector of Saxony, refused to proscribe Luther before
he had acknowledged himself as the author of the propositions condemned
by the papal bull, and had refused to recant, as a measure no less
contrary to the principles of justice than to the laws of the empire;
and they declared, that if he was convicted of error, and refused to
retract, they would then assist the emperor in punishing his contumacy.
The legates, who probably expected the same implicit obedience which had
so long been paid to the dictates of the church, in vain contended that
an affair, already decided by the pope, could never be again brought
into deliberation, and that a dispute with Luther would be endless,
because he refused to acknowledge the authority of the church. They had
the mortification to find that all their remonstrances were ineffectual,
and that their assertions of papal infallibility were heard by the
majority with indifference or contempt.

“Charles, perceiving the sentiments of the diet, and unwilling to offend
the elector of Saxony, to whom he owed the imperial crown, affected
great candour and moderation, and, on the 6th of March, despatched a
respectful summons and safe conduct to Luther; though, to appease the
legate, he promised that Luther should not be suffered to defend, but
simply to acknowledge or recant his doctrines. The undaunted reformer
obeyed the summons with alacrity. His journey to Worms was like a
triumphal procession, and his reception, from all orders of men, evinced
the highest respect and admiration. Greater crowds assembled to behold
him than had been drawn together by the public entry of the emperor; and
his apartments were crowded daily and hourly with persons of the highest
rank and consequence. On his appearance before the diet he behaved with
great propriety, and acted with equal prudence and firmness. He
acknowledged without hesitation, the works published under his name, but
divided them into three classes. The first, he adroitly observed,
relating to faith and good works, contained doctrines which were not
disapproved even by his adversaries; the second, relating to the power
and decrees of the pope, he could not retract without injuring his
conscience, and contributing to the support of papal tyranny; and, in
the third, consisting of his writings against his opponents, he
acknowledged, with regret, that the provocation of his adversaries had
urged him beyond the bounds of moderation. He concluded, as usual, with
declining to retract the condemned propositions, until convinced by
arguments from reason and Scripture, not by the fallible authority of
popes and councils, which experience had proved to be frequently
erroneous and contradictory. When again required to recant, he persisted
in his resolution, and concluded with exclaiming. ‘Here I stand, I can
do no more. God be my help. Amen.’

“The papal legate, and some of the members of the diet, provoked at his
contumacy, exhorted the emperor to imitate the example of his
predecessor, Sigismond, by withdrawing his protection from an heretic;
but Charles rejected their advice with becoming disdain. He was,
however, no less exasperated at the refusal of Luther to recant; and,
after the second examination, retired in the evening to his cabinet, and
drew up, with his own hand, a declaration of his attachment to the
church, and of his resolution to proscribe the condemned doctrines.
‘Descended as I am,’ he said, ‘from the Christian emperors of Germany,
the Catholic kings of Spain, and from the archdukes of Austria and the
dukes of Burgundy, all of whom have preserved, to the last moment of
their lives, their fidelity to the church, and have always been the
defenders and protectors of the Catholic faith, its decrees, ceremonies,
and usages, I have been, am still, and will ever be devoted to those
Christian doctrines, and the constitution of the church, which they have
left to me as a sacred inheritance. And as it is evident that a single
monk has advanced opinions contrary to the sentiments of all Christians,
past and present, I am firmly determined to wipe away the reproach which
a toleration of such errors would cast on Germany, and to employ all my
power and resources, my body, my blood, my life, and even my soul, in
checking the progress of this sacrilegious doctrine. I will not,
therefore, permit Luther to enter into any further explanation, and will
instantly dismiss, and afterwards treat him as an heretic; but I will
not violate my safe conduct, and will cause him to be reconducted to
Wittemberg in safety.’

“The edict of Worms was passed on the 28th of May, but, to give it the
appearance of unanimity, was antedated the 8th. It declared Luther a
heretic and schismatic, confirmed the sentence of the pope, and
denounced the ban of the empire against all who should defend, maintain,
or protect him. To prevent also the dissemination of his opinions, it
prohibited the impression of any book on matters of faith, without the
approbation of the ordinary, and of some neighbouring university.

“Fortunately for the Reformation, the emperor was prevented from
executing the edict of Worms by his absence from Germany, by the civil
commotions in Spain, and still more by the war with Francis I., which
extended into Spain, the Low Countries, and Italy, and for above eight
years involved him in a continued series of contests and negotiations at
a distance from Germany.

“Even in the hereditary countries of the house of Austria the
Reformation found numerous advocates. Notwithstanding Ferdinand had
endeavoured to enforce the edict of Worms, the evangelical principles
were not only received by the people, but were adopted by many of the
higher orders, and by the professors of the university of Vienna. The
same spirit pervaded Bohemia; and that country, so feebly connected with
the church and the empire, seemed again likely to become the scene of
those religious troubles by which it had been desolated during the
Hussite wars.

“The Reformation, thus successful in Germany, spread with equal rapidity
in the neighbouring countries. Zuingle, the illustrious head of the
reformed church in Switzerland, who had preceded Luther in his attacks
against the Roman see, who equalled him in zeal and intrepidity, and
surpassed him in learning and candor, had advanced with more daring
steps; and free from the restraints which subjection to the will of a
sovereign had imposed on the German divine, had overturned the whole
fabric of the established worship. So early as 1524, the canton of
Zurich renounced the supremacy of the pope; and, in 1528, Bern, Basle,
and Schaffhausen, and part of the Grisons, Glarus, and Appenzel,
followed the example.

“The reformed doctrines spread likewise over the kingdoms of the north:
Christian II., the brother-in-law of Charles, had been driven from the
throne of Sweden by Gustavus Vasa, and from that of Denmark by Frederic
of Oldenburgh; and in both countries the jurisdiction of the pope was
abolished, and the Lutheran declared the established religion. In
England, also, the influence and authority of the church experienced a
similar decline; the Reformation was received by the people with an
eagerness which all the despotism of the sovereign could not repress,
and even Henry VIII. himself, who, by writing against Luther, had
acquired the title of Defender of the Faith, was preparing to undermine
the authority of the pope, and was suing for that divorce from his
queen, Catherine of Arragon, which soon afterwards occasioned the
separation of England from the see of Rome. In France a similar schism
took place, notwithstanding the efforts of Francis I., who, while he
encouraged the reformers of Germany, persecuted them in his own
dominions: a considerable party which had seceded from the church, had
been already formed under the auspices of Farell, and afterwards
increased by the labours of Calvin, from whom they received the
denomination of Calvinists.

“The progress of the reformed doctrines, and the conduct of the reformed
princes, was not likely to allay the animosity which subsisted between
the two religious parties. The Catholics presented urgent and continual
representations to the emperor; and, on the other hand, the Lutherans
exerted every effort to maintain and extend their cause, by entering
into associations, and making preparations to resist aggression. Above
all, Philip, landgrave of Hesse, a prince perhaps sincere in his
attachment to the new religion, but violent, ambitious, and interested,
collected troops, and after alarming all Germany by dubious threats,
commenced aggression by invading the territories of the bishops of
Wurtzburg and Bamberg. The Catholic princes, being ill-prepared to
retaliate, the civil war which now threatened Germany, and which
afterwards burst forth with such fury, was suspended by their moderate
language and pacific assurances; and Philip disbanded his troops, after
receiving considerable sums of money in disbursement of his expenses.
The reformed party were thus encouraged by the timidity and irresolution
of their adversaries, and the animosity of the Catholics was augmented
by their own humiliation.

“Hence the emperor summoned, in 1529, a second diet at Spire, for the
usual purpose of opposing the Turks, who had overrun Hungary, and even
threatened the Austrian territories; but principally for terminating the
contests relating to religion. It was opened on the 15th of March, and
in the absence of the emperor, presided over by Ferdinand, who had
recently succeeded to the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia. Every other
consideration yielded to the affairs of religion; and the Catholics,
sensible of the fatal consequences derived from the vote passed at the
preceding diet of Spire, united the influence of their whole body to
procure its repeal or modification. By a majority of voices a decree was
passed, under the pretence of explaining, but virtually repealing the
former edict of toleration, which was declared to have been
misunderstood, and to have given rise to a variety of new doctrines. It
was enacted, that in all places where the edict of Worms had been
executed, it should be still observed, till the meeting of a council;
that those who had adopted the new opinions should desist from all
further innovations; that the mass should be re-established in all
places where it had been abolished, and the Catholic subjects of
reformed princes be suffered to enjoy unlimited toleration. The
ministers of the Gospel were to preach the word of God, according to the
interpretation of the church, and to abstain from promulgating new
doctrines. No hostilities were to be committed under pretence of
religion, and no prince was to protect the subjects of another. The
severest penalties were denounced against the Anabaptists; and
regulations were established against the reformed sect called
Sacramentarians, who, in the doctrine of the real presence in the
sacrament, differed both from the Catholics and Lutherans.

“The Lutherans could not avoid perceiving the intent of this decree, and
were justly alarmed with its probable consequences. After in vain
endeavouring to prevent it from receiving the approbation of the diet,
they published their dissent by a regular protest. They declared that
what had been decided unanimously in one diet, ought not to be revoked
in another by a majority: and as the mass had been proved by their
ministers to be contrary to the institution of Christ, they could not
conscientiously permit its use among their subjects, or allow the absurd
practice of administering the communion according to two different forms
in the same place. They reprobated the clause which enacted the
preaching of the Gospel according to the interpretations of the church,
because it did not determine which was the true church. They argued that
the Scripture, as the only certain and infallible rule of life, ought to
be explained by itself alone, and not by human traditions, which are
doubtful and uncertain; and they, therefore, declared their resolution
to suffer nothing to be taught except the Old and New Testament in their
pristine purity. They readily acceded to the proscription of the
Anabaptists; but with a liberality of sentiment, which they afterwards
belied, they refused to join in proscribing the Sacramentarians, on the
same principle which they had claimed for themselves, that no doctrines
ought to be condemned until they had been heard and refuted. They
concluded with professing their earnest desire to maintain tranquillity,
and their acquiescence in the prosecution of those who were said to have
violated the peace, before equitable judges.

“This protest was signed by John, elector of Saxony, George, margrave of
Brandenburgh Anspach, Ernest and Francis, dukes of Brunswick Lunenberg,
Philip, landgrave of Hesse Cassel, Wolfgang, prince of Anhalt, and
fourteen imperial cities, who thus appealed to the emperor and to a
future council. From this _protest_ the Lutherans acquired the name of
Protestants, which has been since applied to all who separated from the
church of Rome.

“Notwithstanding the remonstrance of the Protestants, the decree of the
diet of Spire was but the prelude to still severer measures, which the
emperor was determined to enforce by his presence, when relieved from
the war in which he was then engaged. He had, therefore, no sooner
concluded the treaty of Barcelona with the pope, and that of Cambray
with Francis, than he quitted Spain with a resolution to restore the
unity of the church. At Placentia, being met by a deputation with the
protest of the Lutherans, he arrested the deputies, and arrogantly
required its revocation. He continued his route to Bologna, where he was
met on the 21st of February, 1520, by Clement VII., and received the
crowns of Lombardy and of the empire with more than usual solemnity.

“During his stay at Bologna he was induced, by the advice of his
chancellor Gattinara, to assume at least the appearance of more mildness
and moderation than he had before displayed, and to fulfil his repeated
promises of endeavouring to procure the convocation of a general
council. With this view he held frequent and private conferences with
Clement; but he was unable to overcome his repugnance, and was persuaded
by the pontiff to resume his intention of employing force, if he failed
in effecting the re-union of the church by mild and moderate measures.
In consequence of this determination, he summoned a diet to meet at
Augsburgh in April, in a circular letter, dated January 1, which
breathes the spirit of conciliation and Christianity. ‘I have convened,’
he observed, ‘this assembly, to consider the difference of opinions on
the subject of religion; and it is my intention to hear both parties
with candour and charity, to examine their respective arguments, to
correct and reform what requires to be corrected and reformed, that the
truth being known, and harmony re-established, there may, in future, be
only one pure and simple faith, and, as all are disciples of the same
Jesus, all may form one and the same church.’

“A subsequent letter, in which he prorogued the meeting till the 15th of
May, was couched in expressions equally temperate and equitable. Yet,
notwithstanding these specious declarations of impartiality and
moderation, the Protestant princes had just reason to doubt his
sincerity. They recollected his earnest endeavours to enforce the edict
of Worms, and the exertion of all his influence and authority in the
empire to obtain the edict of the second diet of Spire. The preamble of
the treaty of Madrid, in which he had unequivocally announced his
hostility to their doctrines, and the arrest of the deputies who carried
their protest, were the most public proofs of his intentions. They were
also alarmed at his long residence at Bologna, and his frequent
conferences and good understanding with the pope; and they had already
learned to dread and suspect his dissimulation. In fact, the Protestant
princes were so convinced that the emperor covered, under fair words,
the most intolerant and despotic designs, that they deliberated whether
they should not instantly assemble their forces, conclude an alliance
with Zurich and Berne, and attack him before he was in a situation to
subjugate them. But this resolution, of which subsequent events proved
the expediency, was counteracted by the divines of Wittemberg, and by
none more than Luther, who, though fierce in debate, and overbearing in
controversy, was averse to war, and exhorted the elector to leave to God
the defence of his own cause.”

Coxe goes on to tell all the action of Charles against the Protestants,
first under the mask of moderation and then in open violence, until he
was compelled to the religious truce of 1532 by an eruption of the Turks
into Hungary, threatening Austria also with invasion, an event requiring
the union of the Protestant and Catholic States against a common enemy.

Meanwhile the Catholics had obtained from Charles the appointment of a
king of the Romans, who being attached “to the Church, might by his
presence give force to the government, and support to the Catholic
cause. With a natural partiality he proposed his brother Ferdinand, who,
in addition to the hereditary countries of the house of Austria, had
recently obtained the crowns of Hungary and Bohemia. He positively
refused to accept any other coadjutor; and his powerful influence
concurring with the wishes of the Catholic electors, Ferdinand was
regularly chosen by the whole college, except the elector of Saxony, on
the 5th of January, 1531.

“The religious feuds being thus suspended, the German states were
enabled to turn their whole force against the enemy of Christendom. The
Protestants, eager to prove that their recent opposition had been merely
derived from motives of conscience, exerted themselves with unusual
alacrity, doubled and even trebled their contingents; and by their
assistance Charles was principally enabled to lead an army in person
against the infidels, and expel them from the Austrian dominions. He
displayed, however, but little gratitude for this assistance; for he was
no sooner relieved from his apprehensions of the Turks, than he
encouraged the imperial chamber to recommence its proceedings against
the Protestants, under the plea that the agreement of Nuremberg regarded
the toleration of religious opinions, and not the possession of
ecclesiastical property. The Protestants, roused by these proceedings,
again renewed the confederacy of Smalkalde, and their engagements with
foreign states; while their active and enterprising chief, the landgrave
of Hesse, entered, with a considerable army, into the territories of
Wirtemberg, defeated the Austrian troops at Lauffen, and restored the
duchy to duke Ulric, who had embraced the Protestant doctrines.

“At this juncture the more timid or moderate of the Catholics
interfered, and, through their interposition, and the mediation of the
elector of Mentz and George duke of Saxony, with the chiefs of the
Protestant party, a convention was concluded, on the 29th of July, 1534,
at Cadan, in Bohemia. The convention of Nuremberg was renewed and
confirmed, and the Protestants acknowledged Ferdinand as king of the
Romans. To save the honour of the emperor, the duke of Wirtemberg and
the landgrave of Hesse were to demand pardon on their knees; but the
duke was allowed to retain possession of his territories on the
condition that the duchy should become a mesne fief of the house of
Austria, and that he should tolerate all religious opinions. John
Frederic, the new elector of Saxony, who had recently succeeded his
father, John the Constant, and was, like him, attached to the Protestant
doctrines, was to receive the investiture of his dominions; and all
processes in the imperial chamber, against the Protestants, were to be
again suspended. Both parties agreed to exclude from the benefit of this
treaty the Sacramentarians, and all other sects who maintained tenets
contrary to the confession of Augsburgh and the Roman Catholic church.

“Charles was anxious to support the Catholics from attachment to the
religion of his ancestors, from his interests as king of Spain and
sovereign of the Netherlands, and from his desire to recover his
authority as emperor; and for these reasons he was determined to exert
his whole force in effecting the restoration of the Catholic cause. But
duly appreciating the delicacy and difficulty of his situation, he
prepared for the contest with his usual foresight, art, and sagacity.
Sensible that violent measures would only unite the Protestants and
alienate the most moderate of the Catholics, he endeavoured to adopt
such a line of conduct, that to the Protestants he should appear only to
prosecute a civil contest, and to the Catholics, to vindicate the honour
of the church and of the empire, and compel refractory schismatics to
submit their objections to the impartial decisions of a general council.
He pursued this plan with unabated perseverance, notwithstanding all the
clamours of the zealous Catholics, and all the remonstrances,
reproaches, and intrigues of the new pontiff, Paul III., who reprobated
the slightest degree of toleration, and was averse to the interference
of a lay prince in ecclesiastical affairs.

“From the edict of Worms to the private act of toleration at the diet at
Ratisbon, Charles had either granted or withheld liberty of conscience,
as he was in friendship or at enmity with the pope and the Turks; yet he
never abandoned his design of compelling the Lutherans to return to the
church, and considered his occasional concessions only as temporary
expedients which he was justified in resuming. With these views he
concluded the peace of Crespy with Francis, on the 18th of September,
1544; and introduced into the treaty a secret article, binding the
French monarch to assist in crushing the Lutheran heresy, and in
enforcing the decree of the council which was about to be summoned; and
he was, in 1506, relieved from all other foreign embarrassments, by the
conclusion of a truce for five years, between his brother, as king of
Hungary, and Solyman the Magnificent, sultan of the Turks.”

It is not necessary to state here the events of this well known war,
every turn of which shows that the worst qualities of the house of
Hapsburgh were concentrated in Charles and made effective by his
military and diplomatic talents. In 1555 the war was concluded by “the
religious peace of Passau,” presided over by Ferdinand, who was
interested to conciliate the Protestant powers, that he might obtain
assistance against the Turks. From all this portion of history we may
see that if the house of Austria did not suppress the Reformation, it
was through no scruples of respect for the rights of conscience.

Before speaking of the destruction of Italy, for it was nothing less, by
Charles VI., and his destruction of the constitution of Spain, we will
turn to consider that of Ferdinand in the East of Europe.

After having obtained from Charles the cession of Austria, and
suppressed a rebellion there by the execution of its leaders, his
marriage with Anne, princess of Bohemia and Hungary, paved the way for
his final triumphs over those countries. The marriage of Louis of
Hungary with his sister also gave colour to claims on that country which
in the course of time he made good. For he claimed the crowns of Hungary
and Bohemia on the death of Louis, who fell in a war with Solyman the
Magnificent, when, having in vain appealed to the pope, the emperor and
the German states for aid, that unfortunate monarch undertook to meet at
Mohatz an army of 200,000 with 30,000 men. Ferdinand presumed on “a
double title: the one derived from family compacts, which secured the
reversion to the house of Austria, in failure of male issue to the
reigning family; and the other in right of his wife Anna, the only
sister of the deceased monarch. But the natives of Hungary and Bohemia
were too much attached to their rights of election to respect these
compacts, or even to acknowledge his claims as husband of the princess;
and Ferdinand, prudently waiving his pretensions, offered himself as a
candidate according to the usual mode of election. Being only opposed in
Bohemia by Albert, duke of Bavaria, he was, on the 26th of October,
1526, elected by a committee of twenty persons, who were appointed by
the states to choose a king.

“The new sovereign, in his letters of thanks to the states, promised to
ratify all their rights and privileges, to observe the religious
compacts, to raise no foreigners to any office of state, to coin good
money, to govern the kingdom according to ancient customs and laws, and
to reside at Prague. He also acknowledged, by public act, his election
to the monarchy, as the free choice of the barons, nobles, and states of
Bohemia, and disowned all other rights and pretensions. He soon
afterwards repaired to Iglau, where he took the usual oaths; and,
continuing his journey to the capital, was crowned with his wife Anne in
the cathedral, on the 4th of February, 1527.

“After taking possession of Moravia, Silesia, and Lusatia, at that time
dependencies on Bohemia, he proceeded to Hungary, where the succession
to the crown was contested by a more powerful rival than the duke of
Bavaria.

“John of Zapoli, count of Zips, and waivode of Transylvania, being at
the head of 40,000 men, whom he had led into the field to join his
sovereign before the battle of Mohatz, offered himself as a candidate
for the crown; and having convened the states at Tokay, was chosen by a
large party of the nobles, who were averse to the rule of a foreigner.
In November, 1526, he was crowned at Alba Regia with the sacred diadem
of St. Stephen, by the Archbishop of Gran, and took up his residence at
Buda, the capital of the kingdom, which had been recently evacuated by
the Turks.

“On the other hand, Mary, the widow of the deceased monarch, and sister
of Ferdinand, summoned, in conjunction with the palatine, a diet at
Presburgh; and a party of the nobles, after declaring the election of
John illegal, because the assembly at Tokay was not regularly convoked
by the palatine, raised Ferdinand to the throne. The new sovereign
supported his election by marching to Presburgh with a powerful army of
Germans and Bohemians, was joyfully received by his party, took an oath
to confirm the rights and privileges of the nation, and proceeded,
without delay, towards Buda. Raab, Commorn, Gran, and Alba Regia
surrendered without opposition; John retired from the capital, and
Ferdinand made his triumphant entry. A numerous meeting of the states,
assembled in a new diet, confirmed the proceedings at Presburgh,
declared Ferdinand king, and proclaimed John and his adherents enemies
of their country if they did not, within twenty-six days, desist from
their contumacy. Ferdinand gained many of the nobles by favours and
promises; his troops defeated those of his rival in various encounters;
and John himself was compelled to take refuge in Poland, under the
protection of Sigismond I., who had married his sister.

“Ferdinand was accordingly crowned by the archbishop of Gran, whom he
had detached from the party of John; and after obtaining the ban of the
diet against his rival, and appointing a council of regency during his
absence, quitted Hungary in full possession of the whole kingdom.”

But before going on with Ferdinand’s transactions in Hungary, which we
defer to the end of the book, we shall hear Coxe relate his destruction
of the constitutional rights of Bohemia, in the XXXIVth chapter of his
history.

“We have already seen that Bohemia was an elective monarchy.

“On his accession to the throne, the king was always constrained to
acknowledge the right of election, and all the privileges of his
subjects, and promise to govern according to the ancient constitution
and statutes, particularly those of the Emperor Charles IV. The power of
the crown was extremely limited, as well by the privileges of the
different orders, as by the authority of the diet, without which he
could not impose taxes, raise troops, make war or peace, coin money, or
institute and abrogate laws.

“The diet, which shared with the king the executive and legislative
authorities, consisted of the three estates of the realm; the barons,
the knights or equestrian order, and deputies from certain privileged
cities. By the laws the king alone possessed the right of convocation,
but in turbulent times the states frequently assembled at the
instigation of the principal barons, or by a common impulse in which the
capital bore a considerable share. The number of members, instead of
being uniform, depended on the exigency of the moment, or the importance
of affairs, sometimes consisting only of a few, and at others forming a
turbulent and heterogeneous assemblage of several hundred.

“Besides all these restrictions which had more or less controlled the
preceding sovereigns, there were others arising from religious affairs,
which particularly shocked the prejudices and thwarted the views of
Ferdinand.

“From the accession of George Podiebrad, the equipoise established
between the Catholics and Calixtins produced continual struggles and
confusion, until his successor Ladislaus, in a diet holden at
Kuttenberg, in 1485, procured the conclusion of a religious peace for
thirty-three years, by which the Catholics and Calixtins agreed to
abstain from mutual persecution; the priests were allowed to preach
freely the word of God; and the compacts approved by the council of
Basle, which had been revoked by the popes, were to be restored and
maintained. These wise regulations suppressed the public dissensions;
but the new opinions of Luther spreading from the contiguous parts of
Saxony, found a ready reception among a people habituated to religious
discussions, and divided into almost as many different sects as there
were priests and preachers. The introduction of the reformed opinions
exciting a new ferment induced the government, which administered the
affairs of Bohemia during the reign of Louis, to prevent their diffusion
by persecution and banishment. Many of the most remarkable Lutherans
were driven from the kingdom; but the majority taking refuge under the
name of Calixtins, carried their own principles into that body, while
their numbers increased its weight and influence. So great, indeed, was
the preponderance of Lutheranism in that sect, that in a committee
selected for the purpose of establishing among themselves uniformity of
opinion, they chose, as their chief or administrator, Howel Czahera,
pastor of one of the churches of Prague, who had been educated at
Wittemberg, and had distinguished himself in the propagation of the
Lutheran doctrines.

“By this similarity of religious sentiments, a more powerful bond than
the frail connections of policy or interest was formed between the
Bohemians and Saxons. The reformers of Germany courted the sectaries of
Bohemia as a body who, by weight and numbers, gave an essential support
to their cause; while the sectaries of Bohemia favoured every new
opinion and approved every innovation, which tended to depress the
hierarchy and diminish the influence of the Roman see.

“Such was the civil and religious state of Bohemia when Ferdinand
ascended the throne. He did not attempt to infringe the privileges
secured by the constitution to the Calixtins; but, as in his other
dominions, he laboured to check the progress of the Reformation, and
exercised the utmost rigour against those who disseminated religious
opinions not tolerated by law; in particular, he obtained from the diet
of Budeweiss a decree of proscription against all sects, not tolerated
by the compacts, and a sentence of banishment against the Calixtine
administrator Czahera, who had distinguished himself for his zeal and
turbulence. As the means of diminishing the influence of the capital, he
removed several magistrates, and again separated the magistracy of the
old and new towns, which had been united since the time of Ladislaus,
and forbade all attempts for effecting their re-union under the penalty
of high treason.

“Notwithstanding these innovations, he obtained considerable support
from the Bohemians during the Turkish war; and a long absence for ten
years, during which no remarkable event occurred, seems to have weakened
the impression occasioned by such acts of authority. During this time he
made a fruitless attempt to disarm the nobles by requiring their
artillery, under the pretext of employing it against the Turks; but
having concluded the peace with Solyman, he ventured on more decisive
innovations. He re-established the archiepiscopal see of Prague, and
empowered the archbishop to consecrate the Calixtine as well as Catholic
priests; and he excited the jealousy of the whole kingdom by formally
revoking the reversal, by which he had acknowledged the right of
election in the states, and declaring himself hereditary sovereign, in
virtue of his marriage with Anne, and of the exploded compacts between
the Bohemian and Austrian princes.

“This unpopular and glaring breach of faith could not fail to excite the
highest indignation among a people so jealous of their privileges; and
the religious war in Germany brought on a crisis, which was equally
dangerous to the sovereign and the subject, and occasioned the loss of
that darling liberty for which the Bohemians had so long sacrificed the
blessings of peace and tranquillity.

“When Charles had determined to reduce by force the league of Smalkalde,
and to subdue the elector of Saxony and the landgrave of Hesse Cassel,
Ferdinand raised a considerable number of troops in the Austrian
dominions, and prepared to collect an army in Bohemia, to co-operate
with his brother. But as he was well aware of the tendency of his
Bohemian subjects to the Lutheran opinions, and knew that a compact of
hereditary friendship and amity with the elector of Saxony, concluded at
Egra in 1459, was still in force, he endeavoured to elude the privileges
of the states, by entangling them with opposite engagements, and
involving them in the war before they could suspect or thwart his
designs. He accordingly summoned a diet at Prague, on the 27th of July,
1546, and obtained their consent to raise a certain number of troops for
the purpose of defending the country, or, if necessary, of marching
against the Turks, or _other enemies of the kingdom_, according to the
direction of the king, his governor, or the burgrave of Prague. As
Maurice of Saxony was then at Prague, he also persuaded the states to
renew with him the ancient compact between Bohemia and the house of
Saxony, in order to counteract their engagements with the electoral
branch.

“During these transactions, he published, in the Bohemian tongue, the
ban which the emperor had issued against the elector of Saxony and the
landgrave of Hesse; declared that, in consequence of this ban, all
alliances with those princes were dissolved; and forbade, under pain of
death, all his Bohemian subjects from supplying them with succours or
provisions.

“The troops, however, who had been voted by the diet, and assembled at
Kathen, rose into mutiny on receiving orders from their general,
Wertmuhle, to make an irruption into the Voigtland, a part of the
electoral dominions. They clamorously urged, that by the vote of the
diet, they were collected to defend the country, not to pass the
frontiers; they therefore refused to march against their ally, the
elector of Saxony; declared the war to be unjust, and expressed their
reluctance to commit hostilities against their fellow Christians, who,
as well as themselves, received the holy communion under both kinds. The
greater part, however, being at length prevailed upon by emissaries from
Ferdinand to obey their orders, they marched into the Voigtland, laid
waste the country, defeated the electoral troops in two engagements, and
after remaining in the field till the beginning of December, returned
into Bohemia. At the close of the campaign, Ferdinand punished the
disobedience of those troops who had refused to pass the frontiers; he
arrested the ringleaders, condemned them to death, and after executing
the most factious, pardoned the rest at the intercession of his queen.

“At the commencement of the next year, he hastened to mature his plan,
and to liberate himself from the shackles imposed by the constitution,
by an extraordinary act of authority, which none of his predecessors had
ventured to exercise without the consent of the states.

“In a mandate bearing date the 12th day of January, 1547, he declared,
‘John Frederic, late elector of Saxony, is preparing to invade Bohemia,
and the territory of Maurice, duke of Saxony, and margrave of Misnia,
and has with this view occupied the convent of Dobroluc, and two
villages. The states of Lower Lusatia, as members of the crown of
Bohemia, and prince Maurice, in virtue of the hereditary compact
recently concluded at the diet of Prague, require succours. We, as king
of Hungary, will bring into the field 14,000 men; our brother, the
emperor, has sent troops to our assistance, and the Lusatians,
Silesians, and Moravians are in motion. The Bohemians must also send an
army into the field.’ It then ordered certain levies of men to be raised
according to the feudal tenures; and to appear at Leutmeritz, with a
month’s provisions and pay. It concluded, ‘Either we the king, or our
son the archduke, will lead the army in person; and all who do not obey
these our commands, shall, according to the laws of the land, be
deprived of their honours, lives, and property.’

“This unprecedented act of authority excited general indignation, and
the three towns of Prague were the foremost to resist its execution.
When the deputies presented their remonstrance, Ferdinand indignantly
replied, ‘What we have commanded is for your advantage, and ye are
culpable in acting contrary to our orders. We declare that you are
guilty of all the former and present misfortunes in this war. God will
punish your disobedience.’ The deputies excusing themselves, by replying
that they could not control the inclinations of the people, the king
rejoined, ‘We have told you our opinion, and we will give you no other
answer, since we have commanded nothing that is unjust. This is not the
first time that you have been disobedient.’ When the deputies presented
a memorial, stating that the levy of troops ought to be approved by a
general diet, he endeavoured to stimulate their pride by reproaches of
disobedience and pusillanimity, and by recalling to their recollection
the heroic courage of their ancestors. He concluded by saying, ‘We are
determined to prosecute this warfare, whether you will go with us or
not. If you accompany us, you do us a favour, and we shall be inclined
to treat you with kindness; but, if you persist in your disobedience,
you are alone accountable for all the misfortunes which may overwhelm
you.’ These reproaches, being attended with no effect, Ferdinand quitted
the city, full of indignation, and repaired to Leutmeritz. Here he found
a numerous assembly of nobles, knights, and deputies of the towns who
formed the states of that province which he had convoked. But from them
he was assailed with the same remonstrances as had been made by the
burghers of Prague. When the proposal for raising troops was laid before
the meeting, they requested him to convoke a general diet, which could
alone authorise the levy, and promised to support the proposition, if
made according to custom and law; and they declared that the mandate of
the 12th of January was contrary to their privileges and liberties. This
remonstrance, conveyed in mild but firm expressions, convinced the king
that it was necessary to have recourse to soothing measures. Having
summoned the principal deputies into his presence, he condescended to
inform them that the danger was too pressing to admit of delay, or to
allow time for the convocation of a diet. He had promised assistance, he
said, to Maurice of Saxony, who was encamped within only four miles of
the enemy; he had already begun his march, and could not retreat without
forfeiting his honour. He therefore entreated them not to forsake him,
or compel him to disgrace himself by a breach of his promise. He engaged
to recall the mandate of the 12th of January, and offered to give full
security that no violation of their privileges should in future result
from this step, and to declare that they took the field not from
obligation, but from compliance with the request of their sovereign. The
assembly, overcome by these professions, fulfilled his wishes as far as
was consistent with the laws of their country. They gave to every baron,
knight, and burgher, liberty to follow, or not to follow the king to the
field, freely and uncompelled, not for the purpose of succouring prince
Maurice, not in obedience to the mandate of the 12th of January, nor in
virtue of the recent compact with Maurice, but solely to defend the
person of the king, and to protect him from danger. They also promised
to persuade the other states of the kingdom to follow their example; and
Ferdinand, after tendering his acknowledgments for these resolutions,
continued his march to Dresden.

“During these transactions, the capital was the scene of tumult and
alarm. The Calixtine members of nine circles, as well nobles and knights
as deputies from the towns, flocking to Prague, united themselves with
the citizens in a solemn confederacy, to defend those rights and
privileges, ancient laws and customs, which had been granted by their
sovereigns, and recently confirmed by Ferdinand. They also signed a
memorial to the king, in which they earnestly requested him to convoke a
diet at Prague, for the purpose of laying before all the states the
affair of the levies; and they concluded by observing, that if he did
not himself summon the diet, the states would of their own authority
assemble on that day, and deliberate on the business.

“To their memorial the king made the same reply as to the states
assembled at Leutmeritz; he promised to hold a diet in person at Prague,
eight days after Easter; forbade them in the interim to assemble, and at
the same time issued his summons to all the circles and towns.

“This measure might have pacified the states, had not the elector of
Saxony gained a considerable advantage over the margrave of
Brandenburgh, who was marching to the assistance of prince Maurice. The
victory encouraged the Bohemians to persist in their opposition, while
it filled Ferdinand with new apprehensions. He instantly despatched
general Wertmuhle to Commotau, and ordered all the states of the kingdom
to send troops under his command, and to supply with provisions the army
of the emperor, who was advancing to Egra to protect Bohemia, and
succour prince Maurice. But this mandate was not obeyed; the states,
which had assembled at Prague, declared the summons of the king and
Wertmuhle illegal, and expressed their resolution to maintain the
hereditary compact with the elector of Saxony; they dispersed a printed
letter through all the circles, exhorting the nobles, knights, and
towns, to join in their confederacy, and declared that those who did not
present themselves before Easter should not be admitted. ‘As numerous
bodies of men were collecting in the neighbouring countries,’ they gave
directions for assembling an army to defend Bohemia, their native land,
from all foreign attacks; to protect their wives and children, property
and vassals, from the hand of violence, and to support each other
against all aggressors. They even imposed a tax on all property for the
maintenance of the national army, appointed a commander-in-chief, and
made arrangements according to ancient custom. In case of extreme
necessity, they summoned all who were capable of bearing arms into the
field, and denounced confiscation of property and banishment against all
who should refuse to serve. They moreover named a committee consisting
of four nobles, four knights, and the magistrates of Prague, to act as
delegates, with full powers, in the name of the three estates.

“Notice being brought that prince Maurice and his brother Augustus of
Saxony had marched with more than 7000 troops to Brix, they issued
instant orders throughout all the circles, to assemble levies for the
purpose of resisting this invasion. They sent a remonstrance to the
king, in which they expressed their surprise that foreign troops had
entered Bohemia without the knowledge and approbation of the states, and
with an implied threat of resistance, they exhorted him to induce the
two dukes of Saxony to return. They also despatched messengers to the
states of Moravia and Lusatia, announcing their common danger, and
requesting succours.

“Ferdinand, in reply to these remonstrances, informed them that he was
arrived at Brix, and in company with the two dukes of Saxony, was
marching through Bohemia, to join the army of the emperor. His object,
he declared, was to protect the kingdom against the elector of Saxony,
who had been put under the ban of the empire, and who had not only
occupied Joachimsthal and Presnitz, but had extorted an oath from the
inhabitants to arm in his defence. The irruption of the emperor, with
20,000 Spanish veterans, into the province of Egra, excited general
indignation and alarm; and the committee circulated their mandates,
ordering all persons to repair to Prague for the purpose of marching
against the enemy, while the burghers of the capital flocked in crowds
to offer their personal services.

“Ferdinand, informed of these movements, testified his surprise and
dissatisfaction that troops should be levied when no enemy was at hand,
and when he himself was marching to join the emperor at Egra. He
promised to prevail on the emperor not to pass through the kingdom,
assured the states that he had no inclination to infringe their
liberties, and again exhorted them to lay down their arms, and to wait
in tranquillity his arrival at Prague. These representations from a
sovereign who had excited the jealousy of his subjects by his
innovations, were attended with no effect; the delegates justified their
proceedings, and declared that they had taken up arms because the states
had certain information of a design to overturn the constitution,
destroy the kingdom, and extirpate the language of Bohemia. And, as the
king and the chief burgrave to whom the defence of the crown belonged,
were absent, they were compelled for their own security to levy an army,
and appoint a commander, not to act against the king, but for the
purpose of protecting his daughter, the archduchess, who was consigned
to their care, and to secure their country from the invasion of foreign
troops. They could not, they observed, revoke the summons, and prevent
the levies; they therefore entreated his majesty to divert the emperor
from the effusion of Christian blood, and to return to the capital
without delay. At the same time the delegates assured the elector of
Saxony of their fixed resolution to maintain and renew the ancient
compact, summoned the states to come forward in defence of the crown, of
their liberties, and native tongue; and earnestly exhorted them to
remain true to the electoral house of Saxony, since the hereditary
compact was a principal prerogative of the crown, and a rock of defence
to the subjects. To the emperor, who remonstrated against their taking
up arms, they replied they did not rise against him or their king, but
in defence of their privileges, and in support of their ancient
alliances. They exhorted him, as the head of Christendom, to spare the
effusion of Christian blood, to be reconciled to the elector, and lead
his own forces, with those of the Christian world, against the Turks,
the inveterate enemies of the Christian faith.

“In the midst of these transactions the diet assembled at Prague, and
the importance of the occasion drew such numbers of deputies, that they
overflowed the place of assembly, and crowded in the square before the
palace. The hereditary compact between George Podiebrad and the elector
of Saxony was read, and the public discontents were inflamed by the
complaints of several officers, that the king had threatened to punish
them with death if they refused to pass the frontiers.

“Two days afterwards, the royal commissaries being introduced, required
the states in the king’s name to dismiss their troops, and dissolve
their confederacy. These commands were enforced by an embassy from the
emperor, who exhorted the states to lay down their arms, and pay due
obedience to their lawful sovereign.

“Instead, however, of paying attention to these representations, the
states drew up an apology for their conduct, and appointed ambassadors
to the king and the emperor, who were commissioned to represent that the
state of Bohemia had been, from time immemorial, accustomed for the sake
of peace and unanimity, to contract confederacies with each other, of
which the documents had been recently destroyed by fire. In regard to
the levy of forces, their forefathers, they said, had always raised
troops whenever a foreign army approached the frontiers, and they
themselves had only acted in conformity with this ancient custom without
the least intention of injuring the emperor or the king, their
sovereign. They concluded by observing, that as the states had prorogued
their meeting till the ensuing Whitsuntide, they hoped the ambassadors
would, in the interim, obtain the king’s approbation, and induce him to
mediate a peace between the emperor and the elector of Saxony, and then
to lead an army against the Turks.

“Before the departure of the ambassadors, a messenger from Ferdinand
announced the total defeat and capture of the elector of Saxony at
Muhlberg; and, to discourage the states, the intelligence was publicly
read before the diet. On this occasion, this numerous assembly evinced
all the versatility of a popular body, easily roused, and as suddenly
depressed. Those very men, who, with the hope of foreign assistance, had
displayed such resolution to assert their liberties, the descendants of
those who under Ziska had singly resisted or deposed their sovereigns,
and spread terror throughout Germany, no sooner saw themselves deprived
of foreign support, than they sank into a servility and despondency as
degrading as their former presumption and petulance were imprudent. Many
of the members hastened from Prague, others who had unwillingly united
in the confederacy, rejoiced, and all affected to join the royalists in
their eager demonstrations of loyalty. The states congratulated the king
on the victory, and represented, that as the war was now concluded, and
as they fully confided in his gracious promise not to introduce foreign
troops into Bohemia, they were willing to dismiss their levies, and
permit the free transport of provisions to the imperial army. On the
following day orders were issued to their commander-in-chief to disband
their forces.

“Ferdinand made no other reply to these tardy offers of submission than
threats and reproaches; and without a moment’s delay prepared to avail
himself of the advantages which he possessed over his humiliated
subjects. He took his departure from Wittemberg with a considerable body
of troops and heavy artillery, and on the 3rd of June reached
Leutmeritz, where he received the submission of the inhabitants. Here he
issued a circular letter to the towns of Prague and the provincial
states, in which he reproached them for their recent misconduct,
commanded them to renounce their confederacy, summoned those who were
well affected to repair to Leutmeritz, under the promise of pardon, and
threatened those with punishment who persisted in their contumacy.

“In consequence of these letters, nobles, knights, and deputies flocked
in great numbers to Leutmeritz. The citizens of Prague alone gave
symptoms of their former resolution; they proposed to occupy the castle,
and fortify the White Mountain; and were not, without much difficulty,
prevailed upon to renounce their fruitless opposition, and to dispatch
their deputies. The states assembled at Leutmeritz, presented to the
king a memorial, in which they declared that their only object in
joining the confederacy was to promote the advantage of their country,
and protect the prerogatives of the crown; and they promised that they
would the next day erase their signatures, tear off their seals, and
defend their king against all his enemies with their lives and fortunes.
The king thanked them for this proof of returning loyalty, and granted
them his pardon, but reserved his severest vengeance against the
contumacious citizens of Prague. He refused to admit their deputies into
his presence; he announced his intention to give an answer in person, on
the Sunday following, in the palace; he commanded the magistrates to
prepare quarters for his troops, and, before the departure of the
deputies, despatched a corps of Germans, who, entering Prague by night,
anticipated the design of the citizens by occupying the castle.

“On the 2d of July, Ferdinand himself made his public entry, at the head
of a numerous army. His troops occupied the gates and the bridge,
quartered themselves in different parts of the city, and encamped on the
banks of the Moldau. But even his own presence, and the awe inspired by
so great a force, could not repress the indignation of the citizens. A
wanton insult of the Germans, who fired on the burghers of the old town,
and the sacking of a neighbouring village by the hussars, provoked the
populace into a tumult, which nearly occasioned the renewal of the civil
war. The burghers dislodged the royal troops from the bridge, and drew
cannon to the banks of the Moldau to batter the castle where the king
resided; they even prepared to renew the national confederacy, and sent
letters to their adherents in the different circles, exhorting them to
furnish speedy and effectual succours. But the revival of a contest
which would have deluged the kingdom in blood, was prevented by the
intervention of those leaders who were inclined to more moderate
measures, and by the policy and affected mildness of the king, who
disavowed the perpetrators of the outrages, and promised redress.

“The whole conduct of Ferdinand was calculated to increase the terror of
the inhabitants; he prohibited the usual demonstrations of joy paid to
the sovereign on his arrival, and forbade the magistrates to approach
his person. On the 3rd, he summoned to the palace, the mayor,
burgomasters, magistrates, councillors, jurors, elders, and two hundred
and forty of the most distinguished citizens of the three towns. On the
day appointed, these persons, amounting to more than six hundred,
repaired to the palace, and had no sooner entered than the gates were
closed and guarded. The king being thus master of the principal members
of the three towns, and those who by their talents or influence might
have roused the people to a desperate resistance, was enabled to impose
his own terms. To impress them with additional terror, he appeared in
all the parade of majesty, and with all the pomp of justice. He was
habited in his royal robes, and seated on a lofty throne; beneath him
was his second son the archduke Ferdinand; and he was surrounded by the
magnates of Moravia, Silesia, and Lusatia, who bore the highest offices
of state, the duke of Teschen, the bishops of Olmutz and Troppau; the
count of Lobcowitz stood before him with a drawn sword. Silence being
proclaimed, numerous charges against the prisoners were read, after
which the king expatiated on their rebellious proceedings, and commanded
them to give an answer to each article of accusation.

“Unable to justify themselves against the abrupt and heavy charge,
Sixtus of Ottersdorf, secretary of the old town, humbly replied, in the
name of all, that they would not presume to enter into any defence of
their conduct with their king and master; but submitted themselves to
his royal mercy, beseeching the intercession of the nobles, bishops, and
counsellors, who were present; and the whole body falling on their
knees, entreated pardon for their disobedience. They were suffered to
continue for some time in this posture, and at length commanded by one
of the officers of state to retire into the hall of justice, and therein
remain imprisoned until the king had taken the advice of his judges.
They retired, and, after several hours of suspense and agitation, the
same officer of state informed them that the king, at the intercession
of the archduke, princes, and lords, and of his own natural clemency,
graciously pardoned their offences under certain conditions. They were
to renounce their confederacy with the other states, and at the next
diet to break their seals, erase their signatures, and to deliver up
their letters and writings relating to their confederacy; to surrender
without exception all the acts of their privileges and immunities, and
to be satisfied with whatever the king should ordain or graciously
restore; to bring all their artillery and ammunition to the palace, and
the burghers their muskets, and all other arms except swords to the town
house; to resign all their vassals and property to the king, and to his
heirs the sovereigns of Bohemia; to cede all the tolls of the three
towns, and to bind themselves to pay his majesty and his successors for
ever a certain tax on beer and malt. They were informed, that if they
would agree to these conditions, the king would pardon the whole people,
and would punish none except a few persons who had behaved
disrespectfully, and whom he had determined to chastise for the sake of
justice and the welfare of the kingdom.

“On the recital of these hard terms, the prisoners required a short
interval to obtain the consent of their fellow burghers. But it was too
dangerous and too critical a moment for Ferdinand to permit the terror
which he had impressed on their minds to subside, or allow men driven to
despair, an opportunity of rousing the people by a public discussion of
these rigorous articles. He therefore sternly rejected their request,
and extorted from them an immediate ratification. Several of the least
dangerous were then deputed to conciliate the burghers, and the
remainder closely guarded in the apartments and vaults of the palace.

“On the following morning some of the prisoners were restored to
liberty, on the condition of not retiring from Prague, and others
released in the ensuing days. At length the remainder were all
liberated, except forty of the most tumultuous and most dangerous, who
were reserved as objects of public punishment.

“During this period, Ferdinand had sent a similar summons to all the
towns of the kingdom, except the loyal towns of Pilsen, Budweiss, and
Aussig. The chief burgomasters, counsellors, and elders were compelled
to repair to the palace, and, like those of Prague, were imprisoned
until they had surrendered all their estates, tolls, revenues, and
privileges, and paid considerable penalties. But so rigorous was the
confinement experienced by these unfortunate victims, and so deeply were
their minds affected by the terrors of their situation, that many died,
and others became frantic. Many of the nobles were also summoned before
a court of justice to be tried for the crimes of which they were
accused. Some flying from the terrors of such a tribunal, their goods
were confiscated, and they were condemned to death; others appearing and
surrendering themselves, twenty-six were selected and imprisoned; of
these some were deprived of their possessions, others were compelled to
pay heavy fines and to hold their estates as fiefs from the king; and
two only were sentenced to public execution.

“As a close to these proceedings, a diet was summoned by the king, to
meet at the palace of Prague on the 22d of August, 1547, and was
attended by a numerous assembly, as all were now eager to give proofs of
their loyalty. With a view to strike additional terror, Ferdinand opened
the diet with the execution of four of his principal prisoners, two of
whom were knights, and the others of the third estate, of whom one Jacob
Fikar, high judge of the kingdom, and burgrave of the old town, was in
the seventieth year of his age.

“At the close of this tragedy, the assembly, which, from these
executions, was stigmatised with the name of the _Bloody Diet_, was
opened, and the king experienced the fullest submission to his decrees.
The burgrave, or president, declared in the name of the lords and
knights, that they had entered into the confederacy with no other view
than to maintain peace and union in the kingdom; and as it was the
pleasure of their sovereign that the confederacy should be dissolved,
they were ready to obey his commands. Instantly a committee of nobles
tore the seals from the acts of the confederacy, which contained the
signatures of one thousand seven hundred and thirty-six lords and
knights, besides those of the towns. The high chancellor then declared,
in the king’s name, to the deputies of the towns, that on account of
their disobedience they deserved to be deprived of their seat at the
diet, but, as a particular mark of favour, they were allowed to retain
that right. All their privileges were to be examined, and those only
restored which the king thought proper to confirm. The artillery, arms,
and ammunition, which had been delivered up, were sent in thirty wagons
to Vienna, and an additional fine was laid on the corporation of Prague.

“The forty prisoners who still remained in confinement were now brought
from their dungeons. Eight were publicly whipped in each of the three
towns; and, before each flagellation, the executioner proclaimed, ‘These
men are punished because they were traitors, and because they excited
the people against their _hereditary_ master,’ a title which Ferdinand
now thought proper to assume. These eight, with a similar number, were
banished, and the remaining four-and-twenty, after paying heavy fines,
were restored to liberty.

“Having thus restored tranquillity and suppressed almost all seeds of
future insurrections, Ferdinand introduced various regulations, which
were calculated to strengthen his authority. He appointed in each town a
court judge, who was to assist in all public meetings, and to take care
that the royal authority received no detriment; and, as he attributed
the opposition made to his designs to the influence of the Lutheran
doctrines, he used every means to prevent their diffusion. He
accordingly, in 1556, established in Bohemia the order of Jesuits, which
he had introduced into his Austrian territories, and encouraged them to
undertake the care of public education, which was the great instrument
of their power. He appointed a committee for the revision and censure of
all publications, and forbade the importation of all foreign works
without their consent.

“Finally, he changed Bohemia from an elective to an hereditary monarchy;
he obtained the consent of the diet that his son Maximilian should be
declared his successor, and in 1562 the prince was crowned as eldest son
and heir to his father. By these measures, Ferdinand greatly extended
the regal prerogative, and abolished the evils arising from elective
monarchy; he also restored tranquillity, and suppressed the factions of
a volatile and turbulent people; yet he, at the same time, depressed
that energy of mind and military ardour which are inseparable from a
free government and are fostered by civil contests, and checked that
active commercial spirit which flourishes in the consciousness of
independence. From this cause the towns, which had hitherto been
remarkable for their commerce, wealth, and population, exhibited under
his reign the first symptoms of decline, and the Bohemians began to lose
that military fame which had rendered them the example and the terror of
Europe.”

Thus was Bohemia subdued in 1547. But in the reign of Ferdinand II.,
seventy-two years after, at the beginning of the Thirty Years’ War,
there was a second conquest of this unhappy country, by the Austrian
power, which seems still more atrocious, inasmuch as then the Bohemians
did not fail in heart, but were overpowered when exerting themselves to
the utmost. It seems to have been wholly owing, in fact, to the want of
skill and energy of their elected king, Frederic, Count Palatine, that
they sustained a defeat at White Mountain, two years after the
commencement of their movement, which was both for religious and
political freedom. We cannot here enter into the whole history of the
rise of the Thirty Years’ War, but must refer our readers to Coxe,
Schiller, and others. It arose directly from the character of Ferdinand
II., whose intolerance and inveteracy were its occasion, if not its
cause. Educated by Jesuits, “from their instructions he derived that
inflexible bigotry and intolerance, and that hostility to the
Protestants, which, at this period, formed the great characteristics of
their order. He frequently expressed a resolution to live with his
family in banishment, to beg his bread from door to door, to submit to
every insult and calamity, to lose even his life, rather than suffer the
true church to be injured. When he assumed the reins of government, he
proved that these declarations were not the effusions of idle
enthusiasm. He refused to confirm the privileges which his father
Charles had granted to his Protestant subjects, and sent his
commissaries to eject their preachers from the archducal domains; these
commissaries being expelled, he collected troops to enforce the
execution of his orders. In the interim he made a pilgrimage to Loretto,
and bound himself by the most solemn vows, before the miraculous image,
not to rest till he had extirpated all heresy in his dominions; at Rome
he was consecrated by the hands of Clement VIII, and his resolutions
were strengthened by the exhortations of the pontiff.

“Animated with a new spirit of intolerance, he returned in 1598 to his
dominions. The first act of his government was a new order for the
banishment of all the Protestant preachers and schoolmasters, and, in
opposition to the remonstrances of the states, he carried this rigorous
measure into execution by force. He supplied the place of the Protestant
seminaries, by founding two convents of Capuchins at Gratz and Bruck,
and colleges of Jesuits at Gratz, Laybach and Clagenfurth. Although two
thirds of his subjects were Protestants, he ordered all who would not
embrace the Catholic faith, to quit his dominions; and supplied the
places of those who preferred banishment to the desertion of their
faith, by introducing numbers of Catholics from Wallachia and the
neighbouring provinces. To complete the expulsion of heresy, his
commissaries, accompanied by an escort, passed from town to town, and
from village to village, restoring the ancient temples to the Catholics,
and demolishing the new churches and schoolhouses, which had been
erected by the Protestants.

“The first symptoms of those troubles, which commenced in the Austrian
territories and afterwards overspread all Europe, appeared in Bohemia.
Ferdinand had not long received the crown before the Protestants
perceived that the alarms derived from his principles and former conduct
were not without foundation; for, from that moment, a new spirit seemed
to animate the counsels of the sovereign, and various acts of hostility
to their doctrines evinced his baneful influence. Slavata and Martinetz,
the two nobles who had proved their zeal for the Catholic faith by
refusing to sign the peace of religion, were introduced into the council
of regency, honoured with an unusual degree of confidence, and displayed
their attachment to their future sovereign by persecuting their
Protestant vassals. The zealous Catholics followed the example, and
exulted in the prospect of a change of government which was likely to
restore their ascendency; the Jesuits presumptuously proclaimed the new
influence and favour which they had attained; and one of the
confidential ministers of Ferdinand himself did not scruple to point out
the future objects of their vengeance, and to declare, that the
restoration of tranquillity could only be effected by executions and
confiscations, and by the revocation of the royal edict which had been
extorted by force. These threats and rumours were aggravated by fear and
religious antipathy; and the Protestants looked forward to the
commencement of the new reign as an era no less pregnant with horrors
than the abominable massacre of St. Bartholomew. In the midst of this
ferment the disclosure of the treaty with Spain contributed to add civil
to religious grievances; the illegal engagement for the eventual
transfer of the crown to the Spanish branch, without even the knowledge
of the states, alarmed a great part of the Catholics, who were no less
tenacious of their elective rights than the Protestants of their
religious privileges. In this situation it was impossible to restrain so
turbulent a people as the Bohemians, animated with all the fury of
political and religious animosity, and in count Thurn appeared another
Ziska, who was capable of rousing, directing, and organising an
insurrection.

“The impolicy and intolerance of the court soon furnished him with an
opportunity to inflame a trivial discussion into open hostilities. It is
a misfortune attending religious disputes in a peculiar degree, in which
all parties act and reason on such discordant principles, that no public
instrument can be worded in terms sufficiently clear and explicit to
prevent all occasions of cavil. This was the case of the royal edict,
[of Ferdinand’s predecessor] which seems by the spirit to grant liberty
of worship with the privilege of constructing churches and schools only
to the Calixtine or Protestant members of the states, whether nobles,
knights, or towns. But an explanatory clause in general terms, instead
of rendering the meaning more specific, only made it more doubtful, and
furnished the towns and vassals of ecclesiastics and lay Catholics with
a pretext for claiming the same privilege. In consequence of this
interpretation, the Protestant inhabitants of the town of Brunau and of
Clostergraben, a village in the vicinity of Prague, began to erect
churches and to perform divine service according to the Protestant
ritual. The archbishop of Prague and the abbot of Brunau, to whom the
respective places belonged, considering these acts as an infringement of
their feudal rights, obtained a prohibition from the government. The
Protestants, however, instead of obeying the order, were encouraged by
the defenders of their religion to persevere; and these and other
prohibitions of the sovereign induced the Protestant states of Bohemia
and its dependencies to enter into a formal confederacy for the security
and defence of their rights and privileges. They followed this
engagement by a petition for redress in the affair of Brunau and
Clostergraben; and at the same time renewed their compacts and treaties
with some of the Protestant princes of Germany.

“Encouraged by this confederacy, the Protestants proceeded with new
vigour, and the churches were completed, notwithstanding Matthias
himself expressed his disapprobation to count Thurn, and declared their
conduct an infraction of the royal edict. But though he was disposed to
connive at this disobedience, Ferdinand was not inclined to the same
acquiescence, and soon after his coronation, an order, obtained by his
influence, was issued by the court, commanding the surrender or
demolition of the newly constructed churches. The archbishop instantly
executed the order at Clostergraben; but at Brunau the people opposed
their abbot, and sent deputies to Matthias, requesting the revocation of
his mandate. Instead, however, of obtaining redress, their deputies were
arrested, and an imperial commission despatched to shut up the church,
and suppress the Protestant worship in Brunau.

“These acts, of which numerous precedents had been given in Germany and
in the Austrian territories, might at any other time have produced a
trifling dispute, which would have soon sunk into oblivion; but amidst
the general ferment, and in the powerful hands of count Thurn, they
became the instrument which excited an insurrection, and occasioned the
Thirty Years’ War.”

We omit the account of the ensuing hostilities, and of the process by
which the Bohemians came to the point of making an effort to eject
Ferdinand from the throne of their kingdom, just at the moment that he
attained the imperial dignity.

“A general diet of the states of Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, and Lusatia
assembled at Prague, soon after the departure of Ferdinand from Vienna.
Having formed a confederacy for the maintenance of their civil and
religious privileges, they were joined by the Protestants of Upper and
Lower Austria, as well as by many of the discontented magnates of
Hungary, and were encouraged by assurances of immediate support from
Bethlehem Gabor. They then proceeded to draw up a list of their
grievances, in which they urged that the election of Ferdinand had been
informal, that he had broken his coronation oath, by interfering in the
government during the life of Matthias, had commenced the war by his own
authority, and sent foreign troops to devastate their country; finally,
that he had infringed their right of election, by entering into
engagements, without the consent of the states, to transfer the eventual
succession of the crown to the Spanish princes, and thus to reduce them
under a foreign, hateful, and despotic yoke. On these grounds they
declared that Ferdinand had forfeited his dignity, and, in virtue of
their supposed right of election, proceeded to nominate a new sovereign.

“On this important article, they were, however, less unanimous than on
the point of exclusion. The Catholics being too weak and inconsiderable
to take any essential share in the election, the remainder of the states
were divided between the choice of a Lutheran or Calvinist sovereign.
The Lutherans were the most numerous, the Calvinists the most active and
artful, and supported by the Picards, or Bohemian brethren, a remnant of
the ancient Hussites. The Calvinists suffered the Lutherans to offer the
crown to the elector of Saxony, who, they were aware, would refuse the
proffered dignity; and he had no sooner declined it than they turned the
choice of the states in favour of the elector Palatine, who was
nominated with only six dissenting voices, two days before Ferdinand was
raised to the imperial throne. To give an appearance of greater weight
to the new election, the states of Moravia, Silesia, and Lusatia were
allowed to participate in the choice, a right before often claimed, but
never admitted.

“Although Frederic had anxiously laboured to secure this dignity, and
had previously resolved to accept it, yet he had no sooner gained his
object, than he hesitated to encounter the dangers with which the crown
was surrounded. He sought advice and encouragement from those with whom
he was connected by blood or interest. He was earnestly dissuaded by his
mother, by the electors of Saxony and Brandenburgh, by the duke of
Bavaria, and, above all, by his father-in-law, the king of England, who
declared, that he would not patronise revolted subjects against their
lawful sovereign, and would neither acknowledge his title nor afford him
support. On the other hand, the wavering resolutions of Frederic were
strengthened by his uncles, Maurice, prince of Orange, and the duke of
Bouillon, by his favourite counseller, Christian of Anhalt, by the
majority of the Protestant league, and by Bethlehem Gabor, with whom he
had entered into the closest connection.”

The closing catastrophe of the hostilities that immediately followed the
election of Frederic, is all we have room to insert.

“They took post on the White Mountain, as the last resource for the
defence of the capital, and behind its ravines and declivities began to
construct intrenchments, in order to defy the assaults of the enemy. The
duke of Bavaria, however, did not allow them time to prepare for
defence; he resolved to drive them from their last refuge before they
had recovered from the confusion of a retreat, and while his own troops
were warm in the pursuit. He reached the vicinity of Prague on the
morning of the 8th of November, 1620, and ere noon had reconnoitred
their position and commenced his attack. His troops overcame all
obstacles; the Hungarian cavalry was instantly defeated and dispersed:
and although the Moravians, under the prince of Anhalt and the young
count Thurn, balanced the fortune of the day by their heroic resistance,
the victory was decided in favour of the imperialists within the short
space of an hour. With the loss of only three hundred men, they took all
the artillery, a hundred standards, left 4000 of the enemy dead on the
field, and drove 1000 into the Moldau; and thus, at one blow, dissipated
the short-lived hopes of Frederic, and decided the fate of Bohemia.

“The citizens of Prague, deserted by their elected sovereign, had no
other alternative than to submit themselves to the mercy of the emperor,
and on the following day opened their gates to the conqueror. All the
indulgence they could obtain was an exemption from plunder; the states
who were immediately convened, took an unconditional oath of allegiance,
dissolved their confederacy, and surrendered their arms. These
arrangements being completed, the duke of Bavaria delivered the reins of
government to prince Charles of Lichtenstein, in obedience to the
appointment of the emperor; and after leaving a garrison in the town
under the command of Tilly, returned triumphantly to Munich, laden with
the spoils of the unfortunate kingdom.

“Three months elapsed without the slightest act of severity against the
insurgents of Bohemia. Many, lulled into security by this doubtful calm,
emerged from their hiding places, and the greater part remained quiet at
Prague, though secretly warned of their danger even by Tilly himself,
who was no pattern of lenity or forbearance. But in an evil hour all the
fury of the tempest burst upon their heads. Forty of the principal
insurgents were arrested in the night of the 21st of January, 1621, and
after being imprisoned four months, and tried before an imperial
committee of inquiry, twenty-three were publicly executed, their
property confiscated, and the remainder either banished or condemned to
perpetual imprisonment. A sentence of proscription and confiscation of
goods was published against count Thurn, and twenty-seven of the other
chiefs, who had fled from the country. Nor were these examples confined
only to those who had been openly concerned in the rebellion; for a
mandate of more than inquisitorial severity was issued, commanding all
landholders who had participated in the insurrection to confess their
delinquencies, and threatening the severest vengeance if they were
afterwards convicted. This dreadful order spread general consternation:
not only those who had shared in the insurrection acknowledged their
guilt, but even the innocent were driven by terror to self-accusation;
and above seven hundred nobles and knights, almost the whole body of
landholders, placed their names on this list of proscription. By a
mockery of the very name of mercy, the emperor granted to these
unfortunate victims their lives and honours, which they were declared to
have forfeited by their own confession; but gratified his vengeance and
rapacity by confiscating the whole or part of their property, and thus
reduced many of the most loyal and ancient families to ruin, or drove
them to seek a refuge from their misfortunes in exile or death.”[4]

We might naturally suppose that this was the end of Bohemia; but “in the
lowest deep a lower deep, still threatening to devour them, opened
wide.”

Not ten years had elapsed before in a temporary truce of the Thirty
Years’ War, Ferdinand II. commenced a persecution of his Protestant
subjects everywhere.

“But it was in Bohemia, so long exposed to his antipathy as the seat of
religious liberty, and where three-fourths of the natives were
Protestants, that he acted with a rigour and cruelty which surpassed all
the horrors of the inquisition itself. He commenced his persecutions by
ejecting the preachers, schoolmasters, and professors, and delivering
the churches to monks, whom he collected indiscriminately from all
quarters of Europe. He then prohibited all persons who were not
Catholics from exercising any trade or handicraft, laid the severest
fines on those who preserved even in secret the slightest remnant of
their former worship, declared Protestant marriages and baptisms null,
wills made by Protestants invalid, and even drove the poor, the sick,
and the distressed from the almshouses and hospitals. Then began a
series of persecutions, from the recollection of which the mind recoils
with horror. In the capital the Protestant burghers were expelled with
their wives and children, and the poorer orders compelled to become
Catholics. The other towns, and even the remotest villages, were visited
by missionary deputations of Jesuits and Capuchin friars, accompanied by
a military force, and were abandoned to every species of monkish
barbarity and military licentiousness. Those who were enabled to seek a
refuge in exile were comparatively fortunate. The slightest degree of
persecution inflicted on those who remained was, to imprison the men,
give up their houses to pillage, and expose their wives and children to
all the outrages of the soldiery. Some were massacred without mercy;
some hunted and driven like wild beasts to the woods and mountains, some
dragged to processions and masses with every species of insult and
cruelty, and those who ventured to oppose these enormities were racked
and mutilated, or put to death with tortures too shocking for humanity
to describe.

“In the midst of these horrors Ferdinand himself repaired to Prague to
nominate and crown his son as his successor. After affecting to display
his clemency, by confirming to the states their power of taxation and
other civil privileges, he abolished their right to elect a king,
forbade the use of the Bohemian tongue in all public transactions, and
set the seal to all the enormities which had been perpetrated under his
authority, by abrogating the royal edict of toleration. He formally
restored the order of the clergy to their rank in the states, from which
they had been expelled during the Hussite wars; finally, he consummated
his vengeance against the Protestants, by declaring that he would
tolerate no religion except the Catholic; and he banished all those who
within a specified time refused to return to the bosom of the church. By
this act of persecution he drove 30,000 families, with all their
servants and retainers, from the kingdom, including the most learned,
the richest, and most industrious portion of the community, and thus
inflicted on Bohemia a wound from which it has never recovered.

“It is a tribute of justice to sound policy, as well as to humanity, to
finish this picture by introducing the reflections of the native
historian, who, being a Catholic and a subject of the house of Austria,
cannot be suspected of exaggeration or partiality. The records of
history scarcely furnish a similar example of such a change as Bohemia
underwent during the reign of Ferdinand II. In 1620, the monks, and a
few of the nobility only excepted, the whole country was entirely
Protestant; at the death of Ferdinand it was, in appearance at least,
Catholic. Till the battle of the White Mountain the states enjoyed more
exclusive privileges than the parliament of England; they enacted laws,
imposed taxes, contracted alliances, declared war and peace, and chose
or confirmed their kings; but all these they now lost. Previous to that
period the Bohemians were considered as a warlike nation, and had often
won military fame; the annals of history recorded, ‘The Bohemians took
the field; the Bohemians stormed the fortifications; the Bohemians
gained the victory;’ but they are now blended with other people, they
are no longer distinguished as a nation in the field of battle, and no
historian has consigned their posterity to glory. Till this fatal period
the Bohemians were daring, undaunted, enterprising, emulous of fame; now
they have lost all their courage, their national pride, their
enterprising spirit. They fled before the Swedes like sheep, or suffered
themselves to be trampled under foot. Their courage lay buried on the
White Mountain. Individuals still possessed personal valour, military
ardour, and a thirst of glory, but, blended with other nations, they
resembled the waters of the Moldau which join those of the Elbe. These
united streams bear ships, overflow lands, and overturn rocks; yet the
Elbe only is mentioned, and the Moldau forgotten. The Bohemian language,
which was used in all the courts of justice, and was in high estimation
among the nobles, fell into contempt; the German was introduced, became
the general language among the nobles and citizens, and was used by the
monks in their sermons; the inhabitants of the towns began to be ashamed
of their native tongue, which was confined to the villages, and called
the language of peasants. The arts and sciences, so highly cultivated
and esteemed under Rodolph, sank beyond recovery. During the period
which immediately followed the banishment of the Protestants, Bohemia
scarcely produced one man who became eminent in any branch of learning.
The Caroline university was under the direction of the Jesuits, or
suppressed; by order of the pope all promotions were stopped, and no
academical honours conferred. A few patriots, both among the clergy and
laity, murmured openly, though ineffectually; others sighed in secret
over the downfall of literature. The greater part of the schools were
conducted by Jesuits and other monkish orders, and nothing taught
therein but bad Latin. It cannot be denied, that several of the Jesuits
were men of great learning and science; but their system was, to keep
the people in ignorance; agreeably to this principle, they gave their
scholars only the rind, and kept to themselves the pulp of literature.
With this view they travelled from town to town as missionaries, and
went from house to house, examining all books, which the landlord was
compelled, under pain of eternal damnation, to produce. The greater part
they confiscated and burnt, so that a Bohemian and a rare book are
synonymous terms. They thus endeavoured to extinguish the ancient
literature of the country, laboured to persuade the students that,
before the introduction of their order into Bohemia, nothing but
ignorance prevailed, and carefully concealed the learned labours, and
even the names of our ancestors. Such was their despotism, that the
collections and writings of the patriotic Balbinus, on the literature of
the ancient Bohemians, could not be published till after the extinction
of their order. In a word, from this period the history of Bohemia
ceases, and the history of every nation in Bohemia begins.”

We must content ourselves with giving only so much of the atrocities of
the Thirty Years’ War. Nothing less than a detail of all its events
would truly fill out the programme suggested by the title of our little
book. It was in this war that was first invented the terrible system of
provisioning an army at the expense of the country invaded or defended,
which was acted out so terrifically by Tilly and Wallenstein, and served
to increase a hundredfold all the former horrors of war.

The picturesque pages of Schiller can be consulted for these details. We
extract only his account of the sack of Magdeburg.

“Two gates were now opened by the storming party for the main body, and
Tilly marched in with part of his infantry. Immediately occupying the
principal streets, he drove the citizens with pointed cannon into their
dwellings, there to await their destiny. They were not long held in
suspense; a word from Tilly decided the fate of Magdeburg.

“Even a more humane general would in vain have recommended mercy to such
soldiers; but Tilly never made the attempt. Left by their general’s
silence masters of the lives of all the citizens, the soldiery broke
into the houses to satiate their most brutal appetites. The prayers of
innocence excited some compassion in the hearts of the Germans, but none
in the rude breasts of Pappenheim’s Walloons. Scarcely had the savage
cruelty commenced, when the other gates were thrown open, and the
cavalry, with the fearful hordes of the Croats, poured in upon the
devoted inhabitants.

“Here commenced a scene of horrors for which history has no
language—poetry no pencil; neither innocent childhood nor helpless old
age, neither youth, sex, rank, nor beauty, could disarm the fury of the
conquerors. Wives were abused in the arms of their husbands, daughters
at the feet of their parents, and the defenceless sex exposed to the
double sacrifice of virtue and life. No situation, however obscure, or
however sacred, escaped the rapacity of the enemy. In a single church
fifty-three women were found beheaded. The Croats amused themselves with
throwing the children into the flames; Pappenheim’s Walloons with
stabbing infants at the mother’s breast. Some officers of the league,
horror-struck at the dreadful scene, ventured to remind Tilly that he
had it in his power to stop the carnage. “Return in an hour,” was his
answer; “I will see what I can do; the soldier must have some reward for
his danger and toils.” These horrors lasted with unabated fury, till at
last the smoke and flames proved a check to the plunderers. To augment
the confusion and to divert the resistance of the inhabitants, the
imperialists had, in the commencement of the assault, fired the town in
several places. The wind rising rapidly, spread the flames, till the
blaze became universal. Fearful indeed was the tumult amid clouds of
smoke, heaps of dead bodies, the clash of swords, the crash of falling
ruins, and streams of blood. The atmosphere glowed; and the intolerable
heat forced at last even the murderers to take refuge in their camp. In
less than twelve hours that strong, populous, and flourishing city, one
of the finest in Germany, was reduced to ashes, with the exception of
two churches and a few houses. The Administrator, Christian William,
after receiving several wounds, was taken prisoner with three of the
burgomasters. Most of the officers and magistrates had already met an
enviable death. The avarice of the officers had saved four hundred of
the richest citizens, in the hope of extorting from them an exorbitant
ransom. But this humanity was confined to the officers of the league,
whom the ruthless barbarity of the imperialists caused to be regarded as
guardian angels.

“Scarcely had the fury of the flames abated, when the Imperialists
returned to renew the pillage amid the ruins and ashes of the town. Many
were suffocated by the smoke; many found rich booty in the cellars,
where the citizens had concealed their more valuable effects. On the
13th of May Tilly himself appeared in the town, after the streets had
been cleared of ashes and dead bodies. Horrible and revolting to
humanity, was the scene that presented itself. The living crawling from
under the dead, children wandering about with heart-rending cries,
calling for their parents; and infants still suckling the breasts of
their lifeless mothers. More than six thousand bodies were thrown into
the Elbe to clean the streets; a much greater number had been consumed
by the flames. The whole number of the slain was reckoned at not less
than thirty thousand.

“The entrance of the general, which took place on the 14th, put a stop
to the plunder, and saved the few who had hitherto contrived to escape.
About a thousand people were taken out of the cathedral, where they had
remained three days and two nights, without food, and in momentary fear
of death. Tilly promised them quarter, and commanded bread to be
distributed among them. The next day a solemn mass was performed in the
cathedral, and a Te Deum sung amidst the discharge of artillery. The
imperial general rode through the streets, that he might be able, as an
eyewitness, to inform his master that no such conquest had been made
since the destruction of Troy and Jerusalem. Nor was this an
exaggeration, whether we consider the greatness, importance, and
prosperity of the city razed, or the fury of its ravagers.”[5]

We have been led somewhat out of chronological order, in order to give a
unity of impression with respect to the wrongs of Bohemia.

We now turn to Italy, among the stationary nations the mother country of
constitutional liberty. And here we shall take for our guide the wise,
the just, the liberal Sismondi, whose larger work upon the Republics of
Italy ought to be translated into English, and studied by every
American. We cannot take time and space here to introduce the history of
the influence of the House of Austria upon Italy, by even a succinct
account of the origin of the imperial claims there. It may be
maintained, with some justice, that owing to previous circumstances of
situation, the Constitution of the kingdom of Italy, its prosperity, and
even its freedom, grew together, under the earlier German Emperors.
“But,” says Sismondi, “the war of investitures, which lasted more than
sixty years, having accomplished the dissolution of every tie between
the different members of the kingdom of Italy, the peace of Constance,
in 1183, by the establishment of a legal liberty, brought to a close the
first and most noble struggle which the nations of modern Europe have
ever maintained against despotism.” “By this peace, the emperor
renounced all the regal privileges which he had hitherto claimed in the
interior of towns. He acknowledged the right of the confederate cities
to levy armies, to enclose themselves within fortifications, and to
exercise, by their commissioners, within their own walls, both civil and
criminal jurisdiction. The consuls of towns acquired, _by the simple
nomination of the people_, all the prerogatives of imperial vicars. The
cities of Lombardy were further authorised to _strengthen their
confederation_ for the defence of these just rights. On the other side,
they engaged to maintain certain rights of the Emperor, which were
defined at the same time; and in order to avoid all disputes, it was
agreed that these rights might always be bought off by the annual sum of
2000 marks of silver.”

There were, it is true, some struggles afterwards, with regard to these
same rights, but the result of these struggles was, in the end, the
greater independence of Italy; and it was in consequence of domestic
troubles, of the ambition of the Popes within Italy, that the French
were first called thither. When Rodolph of Hapsburgh became Emperor, he
sacrificed imperial rights in Italy, which, on the whole, were more
favourable to its freedom than the influence of the house of Anjou,
which replaced them. But he did it without knowing it, and because his
sole object at the moment was to gain from Pope Gregory X. a recognition
of his title to the Empire. When he afterwards discovered what he had
ignorantly done, he made some movements to resume them, but he was
obliged, by Nicholas III., to acknowledge his own diplomas, and from
that period, 1278, the republics as well as the principalities, situated
in the whole extent of what is now called the States of the Church, held
of the Holy See, and not of the Emperor.

It was at the period when the Austrian family was first growing in
power, by preying on those parts of Europe nearer at hand, that, from a
variety of concurring causes, the Republics of Italy became the
paramount power in the Peninsula. Sismondi has given a beautiful picture
of its aspect at this time in his Italian Republics, Chap. V. We make a
single extract:

“The cities, surrounded with thick walls, terraced, and guarded by
towers, were, for the most part, paved with broad flagstones; while the
inhabitants of Paris could not stir out of their houses without plunging
into the mud. Stone bridges of an elegant and bold architecture were
thrown over rivers; aqueducts carried pure water to the fountains. The
palaces of the podestas and signorie united strength with majesty. The
most admirable of those of Florence, the Palazzo Vecchio, was built in
1298. The Loggia in the same city, the church of Santa Croce, that of
Santa Maria del Fiore, with its dome, so admired by Michæl Angelo, were
begun by the architect Arnolfo, scholar of Nicolas di Pisa, between the
years 1254 and 1300. The prodigies of this first born of the fine arts
multiplied in Italy: a pure taste, boldness, and grandeur struck the eye
in all the public monuments, and finally reached even private dwellings;
while the princes of France, England, and Germany, in building their
castles, seemed to think only of shelter and defence. Sculpture in
marble and bronze soon followed the progress of architecture: in 1300,
Andrea de Pisa, son of the architect Nicolas, cast the admirable bronze
gates of the Baptistery at Florence: about the same time, Cimabue and
Giotti revived the art of painting, Casella music, and Dante gave to
Italy his divine poem, unequalled in succeeding generations. History was
written honestly, with scrupulous research and with a graceful
simplicity, by Giovanni Villani, and his school; the study of morals and
philosophy began; and Italy, ennobled by freedom, enlightened nations
till then sunk in darkness.

“The arts of necessity and luxury had been cultivated with not less
success than the fine arts; in every street, warehouses and shops
displayed the wealth that Italy and Flanders only knew how to produce.
It excited the astonishment and cupidity of the French or German
adventurer, who came to find employment in Italy, and who had no other
exchange to make than his blood, against the rich stuffs and brilliant
arms which he coveted. The Tuscan and Lombard merchants, however,
trafficked in the barbarous regions of the West, to carry there the
produce of their industry. Attracted by the franchises of the fairs of
Champagne and Lyons, they went thither, as well to barter their goods,
as to lend their capital at interest to the nobles, habitually loaded
with debt; though at the risk of finding themselves suddenly arrested,
their wealth confiscated, by order of the king of France, and their
lives, too, sometimes endangered by sanctioned robbers, under the
pretext of repressing usury. Industry, the employment of a superabundant
capital, the application of mechanism and science to the production of
wealth, secured the Italians a sort of monopoly through Europe; they
alone offered for sale what all the rich desired to buy; and
notwithstanding the various oppressions of the barbarian kings,
notwithstanding the losses occasioned by their own often repeated
revolutions, their wealth was rapidly renewed. The workmen, the interest
of capital, and the profit of trade, rose simultaneously, while every
one gained much and spent little; manners were still simple, _luxury was
unknown_, and the future was not forestalled by accumulated debt.”

We might go on farther to speak of Pisa and Genoa. “It is difficult to
comprehend how two simple cities could put to sea such prodigious fleets
as those of Pisa and Genoa.” But we merely wish to point attention
towards what Italy was, when left to develop its genius, unrestrained by
foreign influence. We pass from this period of prosperity over two
hundred years, to the time when Maximilian entered into the league of
Cambray. In 1301, Boniface VIII. called Charles of Valois to intervene
in the affairs of Tuscany; and the same year the Papal Court was
transferred into France. In 1313, the emperor Henry VII. invaded Italy,
to intervene in the affairs of Lombardy. In 1327, Louis IV. followed,
for the same purpose; and later, Charles IV., his successor. This
foreign influence was against republicanism, in favour of the
aristocratical families who wished to tyrannise in their respective
states. When Charles VIII. of France invaded Italy, in 1492, there was
no longer to be found, throughout the peninsula, “that power of a
people, whose every individual will tends to the public weal; whose
efforts are all combined for the public benefit and the common safety.
The princes of that country could appeal only to order and the obedience
of the subject, not to the enthusiasm of the citizen, for the protection
of Italian independence.”

The league of Cambray, (we here translate rather freely from Sismondi’s
larger work), was the first enterprise in which all the civilised states
of Europe joined, after the crusades. For the first time, the sovereigns
of nations made an agreement to partition between themselves an
independent state; reviving, by means of pedantic erudition,
superannuated pretensions; and claiming imprescriptable rights of
legitimacy. The crusades had united Europe on the foundation of
religious zeal and enthusiasm;—in the league of Cambray was developed a
new principle of union, the personal and momentary interest of the
strong to despoil the weak. To this event we must assign the origin of
the international law (du droit public), which, for the last three
hundred and fifty years, has governed Europe. It commenced by the most
crying injustice; and the diplomatic science which was, as it were, born
with the sixteenth century, has served ever since to give pretexts to
rapacity and bad faith.

The league of Cambray was an agreement between the Pope, Louis XII., and
Maximilian I., to divide all the _terra firma_ of the Venetian states.
Pope Julius II. had the best foundation for his claims, which were for a
restitution to the States of the Church of what the Venetians had taken
from them by violence and treachery, in the preceding century. As he
could not obtain it from themselves, however, he consented to receive it
from the hands of Louis XII. and Maximilian, who combined to despoil the
republic. The claims of Louis XII. were made for provinces, which, when
he had subjugated Milan, he had himself ceded to the Venetians as the
price of their assistance to him, but which he now claimed on the score
of the imprescriptable right of the Visconti family, of which he had
become heir. Maximilian, on his side, regarded himself as the legitimate
successor, not only of the most powerful German monarchs, but of the
Roman emperors; and claimed all the powers which had been exercised by
Frederic Barbarossa, Otho the Great, and even by Trajan and Augustus.

It is difficult to do justice to the absurdity of these claims. As to
imprescriptible rights, says Sismondi: “Venice, which presented itself
as the most ancient state of Christendom, as the only legitimate
daughter of the Roman republic could plead rights anterior to those of
all the sovereigns.” “The only basis of international law (du droit
public), which can sustain profound examination, is that of national
compact. The interest of nations requires the preservation of their
repose; and to guarantee this repose, it may, in some instances, admit
legitimacy, not as a right, but as a presumption of the national will.
It may also admit prescription, not as a right, but as a presumption of
the mutual satisfaction of all parties. It may admit treaties as the
only means of disarming popular hatred, and of saving the vanquished
from the rage of the vanquisher; but then it must admit also the
violation of these same treaties, as the only and the necessary remedy,
when cruel and dishonorable conditions have been imposed by the abuse of
force. In this case the violation can even become just; for neither the
government which has stipulated has the right to bind the nation to a
shameful and ruinous thing, nor has the present generation a right, for
its own advantage, to bind posterity to their ruin. National interest,
which leaves a hope to the vanquished, on whom a dishonouring treaty has
been imposed, teaches the vanquishers, for their own sake, not to abuse
victory.” “But with whatever fallacious arguments the potentates who
despoiled Venice coloured their pretensions, cupidity, jealousy, and
envy, were the true motives which armed them. With less than three
millions of subjects, upon a territory of less extent than a sixth part
of France, of Spain, or of Germany, Venice ranked with the greatest
empires. It had sustained in turn, the attacks of Muselmen, French, and
Spaniards, without giving any signs of weakness; the richest commerce
animated the capital; numerous manufactories flourished in all the
surrounding cities; the fields prospered by an industrious agriculture;
immense water-works had been achieved, which enriched the soil; and the
people were happy. The subjects of the neighbouring monarchs, comparing
their own poverty with so much strength, opulence, and security, were
tempted to ask in what consisted the difference; and to answer to
themselves, that, in Venice were seen neither the senseless luxury of a
voluptuous court; nor the depradations of courtier-ministers and their
subalterns; nor the petulant ignorance, and ruinous intrigues, of their
young favourites. Venice, without pretending to give lessons, without
being near perfection, was yet a living satire upon other governments;
and the latter, by instinct and without being able to render an account
of their motives, had long desired to destroy it.”

To give all an interest in the destruction of the only state
sufficiently strong to maintain the independence of Italy, Louis and
Maximilian agreed to divide between themselves all the _terra firma_ of
the Venetians; to abandon to Ferdinand all the fortresses in Apulia; to
the pope, the lordships in Romagna, and to the houses of Este and
Gonzaga, the small districts near the Po.”

The war began, January 1509, by the Pope’s excommunicating the Doge and
the Republic, and France commencing hostilities. In the war, there was
nothing so terrible to the Venetians as the action of the German army of
Maximilian. “No sooner did the Germans enter the Venetian cities, than
they plunged into the most brutal debauchery; offending public decency,
and exercising their cruelty and rapacity on all those who came within
their reach.” At the siege of Padua, after great efforts on the part of
Maximilian, the incredible valour of the Venetians, who had driven into
the city most of their forces, induced him to raise the siege. “But
these barbarians, who came to dispute with the Italians the sovereignty
of their country, did not need success to prove their ferocity. After
having taken from the poor peasant, or the captive, all that he
possessed, they put him _to the torture_ to discover hidden treasure, or
to extort ransom from the compassion of friends.—In this abuse of brute
force, the Germans showed themselves the most savage, &c.”

And Maximilian personally made himself responsible for these horrors.

“Pope Julius II. soon began to hate his accomplices in the league of
Cambray. Violent and irascible, he had often shown in his fits of
passion that he could be as cruel as the worst of them. But he had the
soul of an Italian. He could not brook the humiliation of his country
and its being enslaved by those whom he called barbarians. Having
recovered the cities of Romagna, the subject of his quarrel with the
Venetians, he began to make advances to them. At the end of the first
campaign, he entered into negotiations, and on the 21st of February,
1510, granted them absolution. He was aware that he could never drive
the barbarians out of Italy but by arming them against each other; and
as the French were those he most feared, he had recourse to the Germans.
It was necessary to begin with reconciling the Venetians to the emperor;
but Maximilian, always ready to undertake everything, and incapable of
bringing anything to a conclusion, would not relax in a single article
of what he called his rights. As emperor, he considered himself monarch
of all Italy, and although he was always stopped on its frontier, he
refused to renounce the smallest part of what he had purposed
conquering. He asserted that the whole Venetian territory had been
usurped from the empire; and before granting peace to the republic,
demanded almost its annihilation.”

War, of course, was continued, and in the course of three years the
French were driven from Italy, and an alliance formed between Venice and
France, for the purpose of driving out the Germans. This alliance was
inherited, or renewed by Francis I., who encountered the enemy at
Marignano, in the battle of which Marshal Trivulzio declared that every
other of the eighteen pitched battles he had seen seemed to him
children’s play in comparison. At this battle of the giants, as he
termed it, 20,000 dead were left on the field. “This horrible butchery
hastened the conclusion of the wars which arose from the league of
Cambray. On the 15th of January, 1516, a peace was signed between France
and Spain, and Maximilian alone remained at war with the republic.
During the campaign of that year, his German army continued to commit
the most enormous crimes in the Veronese March. Want of money, however,
in the end, compelled Maximilian to consent to the treaty of Noyon,
already signed by the French king. He evacuated Verona on the 14th of
December, and the Venetians were once more put by the French in
possession of all the states of which the league of Cambray had proposed
the partition; but their wealth was annihilated, their population
reduced to one half, their constitution itself broken; and they were
never after in a state to make those efforts for the independence of
Italy, which might have been expected from them before this devastating
war.”

When Maximilian died, January 19th, 1519, leaving his hereditary states
of Austria to his grandson Charles, already sovereign of Spain, the two
Sicilies, the Low Countries and Burgundy, Italy, indeed the whole of
Europe, was endangered by the immeasurable growth of this young
monarch’s power. “Leo X. therefore made preliminaries for an alliance
with Francis I., in order to strengthen himself against him. But
suddenly, with characteristic want of reflection, changing sides, he
signed a secret treaty with Charles V. to engage him to drive the French
out of Italy. The question for Italy was now no longer the distribution
of its provinces between different potentates, but its very existence.
Foreign nations for the future were to fight their battles on its
ground, and at its expense. Leo’s inconsiderate action compromised the
independence even of the States of the Church, where perhaps yet
remained a germ of the individuality of Italy among the nations. Of all
the misfortunes that ever came upon Italy, none was so terrible in its
instant barbarity, or so hopeless for its future, (for it sealed its
ruin,) as this war in Italy of Charles V. against Francis I. As our
purpose is more especially to illustrate the character of Charles, as a
member of the House of Hapsburgh, it is of no consequence that the
object aimed at in this instance was the aggrandizement of Spain, rather
than of the archduchy of Austria, which was now ceded to Ferdinand I. We
are obliged, from this time, to look in two directions for the crimes of
the family. While Ferdinand, in the East of Europe, was destroying
Bohemian liberties, and encroaching upon Hungary, Charles began his
successes in Lombardy with the siege of Pavia, which ended in the defeat
of the French, and the imprisonment of Francis I.; and soon Italy fully
comprehended that it was at the mercy of the conqueror.

It is not possible, in this slight work of ours, to explain
intelligibly, to those not familiar with the history of this period, how
it was, that at this moment all things concurred to put Italy so much
into the power of a single man. Sismondi, in his larger work on the
Italian republics, makes it perfectly clear. We must content ourselves
with stating the fact; and alas for the country that had no hope for its
rights but in the mercy and the justice of a member of the House of
Hapsburgh!

“The evil destiny of Italy was accomplished by Charles V., although it
was the French Charles VIII., who, by invading the country thirty-six
years before, had opened its gates to the transalpine nations. They
inflicted on her calamities beyond example in history; calamities so
much the more keenly felt, as the sufferers were more civilized, the
authors more barbarous. The French invasion ended in giving to the
greatest enemies of France the dominion of that country, so rich, so
industrious, and of which the possession was sought ardently by all.
Never would the House of Austria have achieved the conquest of Italy, if
Charles VIII., Louis XII., and Francis I., had not previously destroyed
the wealth and military organization of the nation; if they had not
themselves introduced the Spaniards into the kingdom of Naples, and the
Germans into the states of Venice; forgetful that both must soon after
be subject to Charles V.”

We must, however, go back from these generalities, to a statement of the
facts which we shall take from Sismondi’s Italian Republics.

“The secret treaty between Leo and the Emperor Charles V. was signed on
May 8th, 1521.” “The Pope united his army to that of the Emperor in the
kingdom of Naples; the command of it was given jointly to Prospero
Colonna and the marquis Pescara: war was declared on the 1st of August,
and the imperial and pontifical troops entered Milan on the 19th
November: but in the midst of the joy of this first success, Leo X.
died,” leaving “his successors in a state of distress, which was
unjustly attributed to them, and which rendered them odious to the
people; for the war into which he had plunged them, without any
reasonable motive, was the most disastrous of all those which had yet
afflicted unhappy Italy. There remained no power truly Italian that
could take any part in it for her defence. Venice was so exhausted by
the war of the league of Cambray, that she was forced to limit her
efforts to the maintenance of her neutrality, and was hardly powerful
enough to make even her neutral position respected. Florence remained
subject to Giulio de’ Medici. The republics of Sienna and Lucca were
tremblingly prepared to obey the strongest.” “The kingdom of Naples was
governed and plundered by the Spaniards. After the French had lost the
duchy of Milan, Francesco Sforza, who had been brought back by the
imperialists, possessed only the name of sovereign. He had never been
for a moment independent; he had never been able to protect his subjects
from the tyranny of the Spanish and German soldiers, who were his
guards. Finally, the marquis de Montferrat and the duke of Savoy had
allowed the French to become masters in their states, and had no power
to refuse them passage to ravage oppressed Italy anew.”

The first hostilities resulted in the French General’s evacuating
Lombardy, partly through the defection of his Swiss allies. The next
year Francis I. made himself master of Milan, and attempted the siege of
Pavia, where he was attacked by Pescara, and, after a murderous battle,
made prisoner. These transactions occupied more than two years, during
which time the imperial army, unpaid and unprovisioned by Charles, lived
at free quarters upon unhappy Lombardy. In the course of the year 1525,
there was much negotiation with respect to the ransom of Francis, and
efforts, nearly successful, were made by Jerome Molone of Milan, to arm
all Italy in vindication of her independence; these were frustrated
through the duplicity and treason of Pescara, who died on the 30th of
November, 1525 at the age of thirty-six, abhorred by all Italy.

“Charles, abusing the advantages which he had obtained, imposed on
Francis the treaty of Madrid, signed on the 14th of January, 1526, by
which the latter abandoned Italy and the duchy of Burgundy. He was set
at liberty on the 18th of March following, and almost immediately
declared to the Italians that he did not regard himself bound by a
treaty extorted from him by force. On the 22nd of May, he signed a
league for the liberty of Italy with Clement VII., the Venetians, and
Francesco Sforza, but still did not abandon the policy of his mother;
instead of thinking in earnest of restoring Italian independence, and
thus securing the equilibrium of Europe, he had only one purpose, that
of alarming Charles with the Italians; and was ready to sacrifice them
as soon as the emperor should abandon Burgundy. At the same time his
supineness, love of pleasure, distrust of his fortune, and repugnance to
violate the treaty of Madrid, hindered him from fulfilling any of the
engagements which he had contracted towards the Italians; he sent them
neither money, French cavalry, nor Swiss forces. Charles, on the other
hand, sent no supplies to pay his armies to Antonio de Leyva, the
constable Bourbon, and Hugo de Monçada, their commanders. These troops
were therefore obliged to live at free quarters, and the oppression of
the whole country was still more dreadful than it had ever been.

“The defection of the duke of Milan, in particular, gave a pretence to
Antonio de Leyva to treat the wretched Milanese with redoubled rigour,
as if they could be responsible for what Leyva called the treachery of
their master. The Spanish army was quartered on the citizens of Milan;
and there was not a soldier who did not make his host a prisoner,
keeping him bound at the foot of the bed, or in the cellar, for the
purpose of having him daily at hand, to force him, by blows or fresh
torture, to satisfy some new caprice; as soon as one wretched person
died of his sufferings, or broke his bond and ended his sufferings by a
voluntary death, either precipitating himself through a window or into a
well, the Spaniard passed into another house to recommence on its
proprietor the same torture. The Venetians and the Pope had united their
forces, under the command of the duke of Urbino, who, exaggerating the
tactics of Prospero Colonna, was ambitious of no other success in war
than that of avoiding battle. He announced to the Senate of Venice, that
he would not approach Milan till the French and Swiss, whose support he
had been promised, joined him. This inaction, while witnessing so many
horrors, reduced the Italians to despair. Sforza, who had been nine
months blockaded in the castle of Milan, and who always hoped to be
delivered by the duke of Milan, whose colours were in sight, supported
the last extremity of hunger before he surrendered to the Spaniard, on
the 24th of July, 1526. The Pope, meanwhile, was far from suspecting
himself in any danger, but his personal enemy, Pompeo Colonna, took
advantage of the name of the Imperial party to raise in the papal state
8000 armed peasants, with whom, on the 20th of September, he surprised
the Vatican, pillaged the palace, as well as the temple of St. Peter,
and constrained the Pope to abjure the alliance of France and Venice.
About the same time, George de Frundsberg, a German condottiere, entered
Lombardy with 13,000 adventurers, whom he had engaged to follow him, and
serve the emperor without pay, contenting themselves with the pillage of
that unhappy country.

The constable Bourbon, to whom Charles had given the chief command of
his forces in Italy, determined to take advantage of this new army, and
unite it to that for which at Milan he had now no further occasion; but
it was not without great difficulty that he could persuade the Spaniards
to quit that city, where they had enjoyed the savage pleasure of
inflicting torture on their hosts. At length, however, he succeeded in
leading them to Pavia. On the 30th of January, 1527, he joined
Frundsberg, who died soon after of apoplexy. Bourbon now remained alone
charged with the command of this formidable army, already exceeding
25,000 men, and continually joined on its route by disbanded soldiers
and brigands intent on pillage. The constable had neither money,
equipments, nor artillery, and very few cavalry; every town shut its
gates on his approach, and he was often on the point of wanting
provisions. He took the road of Southern Italy, and entered Tuscany,
still uncertain whether he should pillage Florence or Rome. The marquis
of Saluzzo, with a small army, retreated before him; the duke of Urbino
followed in his rear, but always keeping out of reach of battle. At
last, Bourbon took the road to Rome, by the valley of the Tiber. On the
5th of May, 1527, he arrived before the Capital of Christendom. Clement,
long alarmed at his march, had, on the 15th of March, signed a truce of
eight months with the viceroy of Naples, and dismissed his troops, never
imagining that one of the emperor’s lieutenants would not respect the
engagements of the other. On the approach of Bourbon, however, the walls
of Rome were again mounted with the engines of war. The next day, the
6th of May, this renegade prince led his troops to the assault of the
city. He was killed near the Janiculum, while mounting the first scaling
ladder. His fall did not stop the terrific band of robbers which he led.
The victorious army scaled the walls, which were ill defended, and
spread terror through the quarters of the Borgo, Vatican, and
Trastevere. In a few hours they were masters of the whole city, Clement
having neglected to destroy the bridges of the Tiber.

“The capital of Christendom was then abandoned to a pillage unparalleled
in that most calamitous period of the first triumph of barbarism over
civilization: neither Alaric the Goth, nor Genseric the Vandal, had
treated it with like ferocity. Not only was all that could be seized in
every house and every shop carried off, but the peasants of the fiefs of
Colonna took possession of the heavy furniture which did not tempt the
cupidity of the soldier. From the day when these barbarians entered the
city, all personal protection was withdrawn; women were abandoned to the
outrages of the victors; and sanctuaries, enriched by the veneration of
Christendom for twelve centuries, were devoted to spoliation. Men,
women, and children were seized, whenever their captors could flatter
themselves that they had concealed some treasure, or that there was any
one sufficiently interested for them to pay their ransom. Every house
resounded with the cries and lamentations of wretched persons thus
subjected to the torture; and this dreadful state of crime and agony
lasted not merely days, _but was prolonged for more than_ NINE _months_:
it was not till the 17th of February, 1528, that the prince of Orange,
one of the French lords, who had accompanied Bourbon in his rebellion,
finally withdrew from Rome all of this army that vice and disease had
spared. The Germans, indeed, after the first few days, had sheathed
their swords to plunge into drunkenness and the most cruel debauchery;
but the Spaniards, up to the last hour of their stay in Rome,
indefatigable in their cold-blooded cruelty, continued to invent fresh
torture to extort new ransoms from all who fell into their hands; even
the plague, the consequence of so much suffering, moral and physical,
which broke out amidst all these horrors, did not make the rapacious
Spaniard loose his prey.

“A struggle between the Italians, feebly seconded by the French, and the
generals of Charles V., was prolonged yet more than two years after the
sack of Rome; but it only added to the desolation of Italy, and
destroyed alike in all the Italian provinces, the last remains of
prosperity.” “The banditti whom Charles V. called his soldiers, whom he
never paid, and who showed no disposition to obedience, were cantoned at
Milan, Rome, and the principal cities of Italy: they divided their time
between debauchery, and the infliction of torture on their hosts; their
officers were unable to induce them to leave the towns, and advance
towards the enemy. The people, in the excess of suffering, met every
change with eagerness, and received Lantrec (the French commander) as a
deliverer.” He passed the Tronto on the 10th of February, 1528; lost
valuable time in Apulia, where he took and sacked Melfi on the 23d of
March, and did not arrive till the 1st of May before Naples.

“The prince of Orange had just entered the city with the army which had
sacked Rome, but of which the greater part had been carried off by a
dreadful mortality, the consequence and punishment of its vices and
crimes. Instead of vigorously attacking them, Lantrec, in spite of the
warm remonstrances of his officers, persisted in reducing Naples by
blockade; thus exposing his army to the influence of a destructive
climate.”... “The inhabitants of Naples experienced the most cruel
privations, and sickness soon made great havoc amongst them: but a
malady not less fatal broke out in the French camp.” “In the middle of
June, the French reckoned 25,000 men; by the 2d of August not 4000 were
left fit for service.” “Lantrec himself died on the 15th of August, and
almost all his officers.” The marquis de Saluces, on whom the command
devolved, felt the necessity of a retreat, but knew not how to secure it
in presence of such a superior force. He tried to escape from the
imperialists, by taking advantage of a tremendous storm in the night of
the 29th of August: but was soon pursued and overtaken at Aversa, where,
on the 30th, he was forced to capitulate. The magazines and hospitals at
Capua were, at the same time, given up to the Spaniards. The prisoners
and the sick were crowded together in the stables of the Magdalen, where
contagion acquired new force. The Spaniards foresaw it, and watched with
indifference the agony and death of all; for nearly all of that
brilliant army perished—a few invalids only ever returned to France.

“During this campaign, another French army, conducted by François de
Bourbon, Count de St. Pol, had entered Lombardy, at the moment when
Henry, duke of Brunswick, led thither a German army. Henry, finding
nothing more to pillage, announced that his mission was to punish a
rebellious nation, and put to the sword ALL _the inhabitants_ of the
villages through which he passed. Milan was at once a prey to famine and
the plague, aggravated by the cupidity and the cold-blooded ferocity of
Leyva, who seized ALL the provisions brought in from the country; and to
profit by the general misery, resold them at an enormous price.”

“The winter passed in suffering and inaction. The following year, Leyva
surprised the Count de St. Pol, at Landriano, on the 21st of June, 1529,
and made him prisoner with all his principal officers. This was the last
military incident of this dreadful war.”

“Peace was ardently desired on both sides; negotiations were actively
carried on; but every potentate sought to deceive his ally, in order to
obtain better conditions from his adversary. Margaret of Austria, the
sister of the emperor’s father, and Louisa of Savoy, the mother of the
king of France, met at Cambray; and in a conference, to which no
witnesses were admitted, arranged what was called “Le traité des dames.”
Clement VII. had, at the same time, a nuncio at Barcelona, who
negotiated with the emperor. The latter was impatient to arrange the
affairs of Italy, in order to pass into Germany. On the 20th of June,
1529, Charles signed at Barcelona a treaty of perpetual alliance with
the Pope: by it he engaged to sacrifice the republic of Florence to the
Pope’s vengeance, and to place in the service of Clement, in order to
accomplish it, all the brigands who had previously devastated Italy.
Florence was to be given in sovereignty to the bastard Alexander de’
Medici, who was to marry an illegitimate daughter of Charles V. On the
5th of August following, Louis and Margaret signed the treaty of
Cambray, by which Francis abandoned, without reserve, all his Italian
allies to the caprices of Charles; who, on his side, renounced Burgundy,
and restored to Francis his two sons, who had been retained as hostages.
Charles arrived at Genoa, on board the fleet of Andrea Doria, on the
12th of August. The Pope awaited him at Bologna, into which he made his
entry on the 5th of November. He summoned thither all the princes of
Italy, or their deputies, and treated them with more moderation than
might have been expected after the shameful abandonment of them by
France. As he knew the health of Francesco Sforza, duke of Milan, to be
in a declining state, which promised but few years of life, he granted
him the restitution of his duchy, for the sum of 900,000 ducats, which
Sforza was to pay at different times; they had not all fallen due when
that prince died, on the 24th of October, 1535, without issue, and his
estates escheated to the emperor. On the 23d of December, 1529, Charles
granted peace to the Venetians, who restored him only some places in
Apulia, and gave up Ravenna and Cernia to the Pope.

“On the 20th of March, Alphonso d’Este also signed a treaty, by which he
referred his differences with the Pope to the arbitration of the
emperor. Charles did not pronounce on them till the following year. He
conferred on Alphonso the possession of Modena, Reggio, and Rubbiera, as
fiefs of the empire; and he made the Pope give him the investiture of
Ferrara. On the 15th of March, 1530, a diploma of the emperor raised the
marquisate of Mantua to a duchy, in favor of Frederick de Gonzaga. The
duke of Savoy and the marquis de Montferrat, till then protected by
France, arrived at Bologna, to place themselves under the protection of
the emperor. The duke of Urbino was recommended to him by the Venetians,
and obtained some promises of favor. The republics of Genoa, Sienna, and
Lucca, had permission to vegetate under the imperial protection; and
Charles, having received from the Pope at Bologna, on the 22d of
February and 24th of March, the two crowns of Lombardy and of the
empire, departed in the beginning of April for Germany, in order to
escape witnessing the odious service, in which he consented that his
troops should be employed against Florence.”

“A period of three centuries of weakness, humiliation, and suffering, in
Italy, began in the year 1530: from that time she has been always
oppressed by foreigners, and enervated and corrupted by her masters.
These last have reproached her with the vices of which they were
themselves the authors. After having reduced her to the impossibility of
resisting, they have accused her of cowardice when she submitted, and of
rebellion when she made efforts to vindicate herself. The Italians,
during this long period of slavery, have been agitated with the desire
of becoming once more a nation; as, however, they had lost the direction
of their own affairs, they ceased to have any history which could be
called theirs; their misfortunes have become but episodes in the
histories of other nations.”

Sismondi closes his history of the Italian Republics, with an account of
the successive fall of all the republics, which still remained
independent after the coronation of Charles V. Florence had been on the
point of recovering its liberty from the tyranny of the Medici, when the
constable Bourbon approached the walls in his march to Rome, on the 26th
of April, 1527; but the terror inspired by that army of brigands,
repressed the movement. When they heard, however, of the taking of Rome,
the Florentines rose with firmness, expelled the Medici, and restored
the republic. Michæl Angelo completed the fortifications of Florence, in
1529. On the other hand, “Clement VII. sent against his native city that
very prince of Orange, the successor of Bourbon, who had made him
prisoner at Rome; and with him that very army of robbers which had
overwhelmed the Holy See, and its subjects, with misery and every
outrage. This army entered Tuscany, September, 1529.” Florence
capitulated, after immense but vain efforts at defence, on the 12th of
August, 1530.

Into Sienna, Charles V. introduced a Spanish garrison, but the Siennese,
unable to bear the pride, cupidity, and ferocity of the Spanish, drove
them out the 11th of August, 1552. In 1555, after incredible sufferings,
it capitulated, the 2nd of April, 1555. The Spaniards retained
possession, nevertheless, for two years, and death and exile were the
lot of the generous citizens to whom amnesty had been promised.

In 1556 Burtamachi of Lucca made an attempt to restore liberty to the
Tuscan cities, which were all to be organized with popular constitutions
and confederate. The plot was discovered, Burtamachi executed, and the
city given up to a small oligarchy for the next two hundred and fifty
years. “Genoa, which had received the name of republic through Charles
V.’s connivance (who had needed its services in the war of 1528), was
governed by a narrow aristocracy, founded by Andrea Doria, who at the
same time “attached his country to the house of Austria, with a
submission which the greater number of Genoese felt as a deep
humiliation.” In 1547 the conspiracy of the French nearly destroyed this
government; Vachero’s conspiracy, in 1628, was also abortive. “But the
spirit of the ancient Italian republics was not extinguished among the
people of Genoa, as among the nobles.” In the war of the Austrian
succession, in 1746, they made alliance with the Bourbons. “The
Austrians appeared before Genoa; and the senate, which dared not arm the
population, opened their gates to them. The Austrians abused, as they
have ever done, the favours of fortune. They exacted from Genoa a
contribution of 9,000,000 of florins to the empire, a sum which that
city was not in a condition to pay. They seized all the money in the
bank, all the plate of the churches, and even the property of
individuals.” To these injuries they added insults which at length
roused the people, who, having no other arms, attacked their oppressors
with stones from the streets, and tiles torn from the houses, till,
notwithstanding a firing by the soldiers that filled many houses with
the dead, the streets were covered with dead Austrians, and the rest
fled in terror. These mostly perished on the barren mountains around the
city; for the Genoese retained their advantage till the treaty of
Aix-la-Chapelle secured their republic against Austria, under the
protection of the French.

Venice employed all the sixteenth century in endeavouring to repair the
disasters of the league of Cambray. Its policy was, especially during
the seventeenth century, to throw off the yoke of Austria, but it knew
its own weakness too well to make an open movement. During the Thirty
Years’ War, however, it gave succour to the Protestants of Germany, to
Bethlehem Gabor, and to Ragotski in Hungary. “But the attacks of the
Turks made it necessary for the Venetians to make friendly advances to
Austria; and as its own government grew more aristocratic, and odious
with despotism, it became more and more timid. It attempted to be
neutral in the war of the Spanish succession. In the French war of 1796
it actually took the side of Austria; but when Bonaparte declared war
against it, in 1797, Austria, with characteristic ingratitude, refused
all assistance; and at the peace of Santo Formio took possession of
Venice, and part of its states. But after the French made themselves
masters of Vienna, she was obliged by the treaty of Presburg to restore
Venice to the kingdom of Italy.

Thus, after Italy lost its liberty, in the first half of the fifteenth
century, four of the five nominal republics became narrow aristocracies.

In the beginning of the nineteenth century Napoleon Bonaparte effected a
momentary resurrection of this beautiful country. “Five millions and a
half of inhabitants in the kingdom of Italy were put in possession of a
constitution, securing the participation of numbers in the government,
which is the essence of a republic.” Six millions and a half in the
kingdom of Naples received institutions less advanced, it is true; but
even there the law had succeeded arbitrary power; public and oral
evidence had succeeded secret information and the torture; equality, the
feudal system of education, instead of retrograding, had been rendered
progressive; and thought, as well as religious conscience, had recovered
freedom. Finally, five millions and a half, (Piedmontese, Genoese,
Parmesans, Tuscans, and Romans,) were temporarily united to France,
“secure that at no very distant period, when their political education
should be accomplished, they would again be incorporated in that Italy
to the future liberty and glory of which they now directed every
thought.”

“It has been the work of the _coalition_ to destroy all; to place Italy
again under the galling yoke of Austria; to take from her, with
political liberty, civil and religious freedom, and even freedom of
thought; to corrupt her morals, and to heap upon her the utmost degree
of humiliation. Italy is unanimous in abhorring this ignominious yoke;
Italy, to break it, has done all that could be expected of her. In a
struggle between an established government and a nation, the former has
all the advantage; it has in its favour rapidity of communication,
certainty of information, soldiers, arsenals, fortresses, and finances.
The people have only their unarmed hands, and their masses _unaccustomed
to act together_: nevertheless, in every struggle with its oppressors,
during these fifteen years, in Italy, (Sismondi wrote in 1832,) the
victory has remained with the people. At Naples, in Sicily, in Piedmont,
in the states of the Church, at Modena and Parma, unarmed masses have
seized the arms of the soldiers; men chosen by the people have taken the
places of the despots in their palaces. The Italians, everywhere
victorious over their own tyrants, have, it is true, been everywhere
forced back under the yoke, with redoubled cruelty, by the league of
foreign despots. Attacked before they could have given themselves a
government, or formed a treasury, arsenals, or an army, by the sovereign
of another nation, who reckons not less than 30,000,000 of subjects,
they did not attempt a hopeless resistance, which would have deprived
them of every chance for the future.”

“Europe will know no repose till the nation which, in the dark ages,
lighted the torch of civilization with that of liberty, shall be enabled
herself to enjoy the light which she created.”

But we must now turn our regards upon SPAIN, which the Austrian family,
in the person of the ruthless conqueror of Italy, had taken into its
_Christian_ (?) guardianship, by right of his mother, Joanna of Castile.

It is not perhaps sufficiently well known, that Spain, as well as the
other countries of Europe, received from its Gothic and Vandalic
ancestors the germs of constitutional government, which, from peculiar
circumstances attending the Saracen conquest, were preserved in singular
purity in the several kingdoms of Spain, that were afterwards united
under Ferdinand and Isabella. Robertson, in a view of the state of
Europe, which he prefixes to his biography of Charles V., says:—

“Notwithstanding the singular revolution which the invasion of the Moors
occasioned in Spain, and the peculiarity of its fate, in being so long
subject to the Mahomedan yoke, the customs introduced by the Vandals and
Goths had taken such deep root, and were so thoroughly incorporated with
the frame of its government, that in every province which the Christians
recovered from the Moors, we find the condition of individuals, as well
as the political constitution, nearly the same as in other nations of
Europe.”

“The royal prerogative was circumscribed within such narrow bounds as
reduced the power of the sovereign almost to nothing. The privileges of
the nobility were great in proportion, and extended so far as to border
on absolute independance. The immunities of the cities were likewise
greater than in other feudal kingdoms; they possessed considerable
influence in the arts, and they aspired at obtaining more.”

In Spain also, as in other countries where the germs of constitutional
liberty existed, as the best legacy of their northern ancestry, there
was a struggle for development, which the conservative historians
uniformly stigmatize as “turbulence” and “want of respect to law,”
though in fact it is an aspiration for a government of laws rather than
of persons.

“In 1492,” says Robertson, “in the principality of Catalonia, which was
annexed to the kingdom of Aragon, the impatience of the people to obtain
the redress of their grievances having prompted them to take arms
against their sovereign John II., they, by a solemn deed, recalled the
oath of allegiance which they had sworn to him, declared him and his
posterity to be unworthy of the throne, and endeavoured to establish a
republican form of government, in order to secure the perpetual
enjoyment of that liberty after which they aspired. Nearly about the
same period, the indignation of the Castilian nobility against the weak
and flagitious administration of Henry IV. having led them to combine
against him, they arrogated, as one of the privileges belonging to their
order, the right of trying and of passing sentence on their sovereign.
That the exercise of this power might be as public and solemn, as the
pretension to it was bold, they summoned all the nobility of their party
to meet at Avila; a spacious theatre was erected in a plain, without the
walls of the town; an image, representing the king, was seated on a
throne, clad in royal robes, with a crown on its head, a sceptre in its
hand, and the sword of justice by its side.

“The accusation against the king was read, and the sentence of
deposition was pronounced, in presence of a numerous assembly. At the
close of the first article of the charge, the archbishop of Toledo
advanced, and tore the crown from the head of the image; at the close of
the second, the Conde de Placentia snatched the sword of justice from
its side; at the close of the third, the Conde de Beneventi wrested the
sceptre from its hand; at the close of the last, Don Diego Lopez de
Stuniga tumbled it headlong from the throne. At the same instant, Don
Alphonso, Henry’s brother, was proclaimed king of Castile and Leon, in
his stead.

“The most daring leaders of faction would not have ventured on these
measures, nor have conducted them with such public ceremony, if the
sentiments of the people concerning the royal dignity had not been so
formed by the laws and policy, to which they were accustomed both in
Castile and Catalonia, as prepared them to approve of such extraordinary
proceedings, or to acquiesce in them.

“In Aragon, the form of government was monarchical, but the genius and
maxims of it were purely republican. The kings, who were long elective,
retained only the shadow of power; the real exercise of it was in the
Cortes or parliament of the kingdom. This supreme assembly was composed
of four different arms or members. The nobility of the first rank; the
equestrian order, or nobility of the second class; the representatives
of the cities and towns, whose right to a place in the Cortes, if we may
give credit to the historians of Aragon, was coëval with the
constitution; the ecclesiastical order, composed of the dignitaries of
the church, together with the representatives of the inferior clergy. No
law could pass in this assembly without the assent of every single
member who had a right to vote. Without the permission of the Cortes, no
tax could be imposed; no war could be declared; no peace could be
concluded; no money could be coined; nor could any alteration be made in
the current specie. The power of reviewing the proceedings of all
inferior courts, the privilege of inspecting every department of
administration, and the right of redressing all grievances, belonged to
the Cortes. Nor did those who conceived themselves to be aggrieved,
address the Cortes in the humble tone of suppliants, and petition for
redress; they demanded it as the birthright of freemen, and required the
guardians of their liberty to decide with respect to the points which
they laid before them. This sovereign court was held during several
centuries, every year; but in consequence of a regulation introduced
about the beginning of the fourteenth century, it was convoked from that
period only once in two years. After it was assembled, the king had no
right to prorogue or dissolve it without its own consent; and the
session continued forty days.

“Not satisfied with having erected such formidable barriers against the
encroachments of the royal prerogative, nor willing to commit the sole
guardianship of their liberties entirely to the vigilance and authority
of an assembly, similar to the diets, states-general, and parliaments,
in which the other feudal nations have placed so much confidence, the
Aragonese had recourse to an institution peculiar to themselves, and
elected a Justiza or supreme judge.

“This magistrate, whose office bore some resemblance to that of the
Ephori in ancient Sparta, acted as the protector of the people and the
comptroller of the prince.

“The person of the Justiza was sacred, his power and jurisdiction almost
unbounded. He was the supreme interpreter of the laws. Not only inferior
judges, but the kings themselves, were bound to consult him in every
doubtful case, and to receive his responses with implicit deference. An
appeal lay to him from the royal judges, as well as from those appointed
by the barons within their respective territories. Even when no appeal
was made to him, he could interpose by his own authority, prohibit the
ordinary judge to proceed, take immediate cognizance of the cause
himself, and remove the party accused to the Manifestation or prison of
the state, to which no person had access but by his permission. His
power was exerted with no less vigour and effect in superintending the
administration of government, than in regulating the course of justice.

“It was the prerogative of the Justiza to inspect the conduct of the
King. He had a title to review all the royal proclamations and patents,
and to declare whether or not they were agreeable to law, and ought to
be carried into execution. He, by his sole authority, could exclude any
of the king’s ministers from the conduct of affairs, and call them to
answer for their mal-administration.

“He himself was accountable to the Cortes only, for the manner in which
he discharged the duties of this high office; and performed functions of
the greatest importance that could be committed to a subject.”

It is evident from the bare enumeration of the privileges of the
Aragonese Cortes, as well as of the rights belonging to the Justiza,
that a very small portion of power remained in the hands of the King.

The Aragonese seem to have been solicitous that their monarchs should
know and feel this state of impotence to which they were reduced.

Even in swearing allegiance to their sovereign, an act which ought
naturally to be accompanied with professions of submission and respect,
they devised an oath, in such a form, as to remind him of his dependence
on his subjects. “We,” said the Justiza to the king in the name of his
high-spirited barons, “who are each of us as good, and who are
altogether more powerful than you, promise obedience to your government,
if you maintain our rights and liberties; but if not, not.” Conformably
to this oath they established it as a fundamental article in their
constitution, that if the king should violate their rights and
privileges it was lawful for the people to disclaim him as their
sovereign, and to elect another, even though a heathen, in his place.
The attachment of the Aragonese to this singular constitution of
government was extreme, and their respect for it approached to
superstitious veneration. In the preamble to one of their laws, they
declare, that such was the barrenness of their country, and the poverty
of the inhabitants, that, if it were not on account of the liberties by
which they were distinguished from other nations, the people would
abandon it, and go in quest of a settlement to some more fruitful
region.

“In Castile, there were not such peculiarities in the form of
government, as to establish any remarkable distinction between it and
that of the other European nations. The executive part of government was
committed to the king, but, with a prerogative extremely limited. The
legislative authority resided in the Cortes, which was composed of the
nobility, the dignified ecclesiastics, and the representatives of the
cities. The assembly of the Cortes in Castile was very ancient, and
seems to have been almost coëval with the constitution. The members of
the three different orders, who had a right of suffrage, met in one
place, and deliberated as one collective body; the decisions of which
were regulated by the sentiments of the majority. The right of imposing
taxes, of enacting laws, and of redressing grievances, belonged to this
assembly; and in order to secure the assent of the king to such statutes
and regulations as were deemed salutary or beneficial to the kingdom, it
was usual in the Cortes to take no step towards granting money, until
all business relative to the public welfare was concluded. The
representatives of cities seem to have obtained a seat very early in the
Cortes of Castile, and soon acquired such influence and credit as were
very uncommon, at a period when the splendor and pre-eminence of the
nobility had eclipsed or depressed all other orders of men. The number
of members from cities bore such a proportion to that of the whole
collective body, as rendered them extremely respectable in the Cortes.
The degree of consideration which they possessed in the state may be
estimated by one event. Upon the death of John I., a council of regency
was appointed to govern the kingdom during the minority of his son.

“It was composed of an equal number of noble men and of deputies chosen
by the cities; the latter were admitted to the same rank, and invested
with the same powers, as prelates and grandees of the first order. But
though the members of communities in Castile were elevated above the
condition wherein they were placed in other kingdoms of Europe; though
they had attained to such political importance that even the proud and
jealous spirit of the feudal aristocracy could not exclude them from a
considerable share in the government; yet the nobles, notwithstanding
these acquisitions of the commons, continued to assert the privileges of
their order, in opposition to the crown, in a tone extremely high. There
was not any body of nobility in Europe more distinguished for
independence of spirit, haughtiness of deportment, and bold pretensions,
than that of Castile. The history of that monarchy affords the most
striking examples of the vigilance with which they observed, and of the
vigour with which they opposed, every measure of their kings that tended
to encroach on their jurisdiction, to diminish their dignity, or to
abridge their power. Even in their ordinary intercourse with their
monarchs, they preserved such a consciousness of their rank, that the
nobles of the first order claimed it as a privilege to be covered in the
royal presence, and approached their sovereign rather as equals than as
subjects.

“The constitutions of the subordinate monarchies, which depended upon
the crowns of Castile and Aragon, nearly resembled those of the kingdoms
to which they were annexed.

“In all of them, the dignity and independence of the nobles were great;
the immunities and power of the cities were considerable.

“An attentive observation of the singular situation of Spain, as well as
the various events which occurred there, from the invasion of the Moors
to the union of the kingdom, under Ferdinand and Isabella, will discover
the causes to which all the peculiarities in its political constitution
I have pointed out, ought to be ascribed.

“As the provinces of Spain were wrested from the Mahomedans gradually
and with difficulty, the nobles who followed the standard of any eminent
leader in these wars, conquered not for him alone but for themselves.
They claimed a share in the lands which their valour had won from the
enemy, and their prosperity and power increased, in proportion as the
territory of the prince extended.

“During their perpetual wars with the Moors, the monarchs of the several
kingdoms in Spain depended so much on their nobles, that it became
necessary to conciliate their good will by successive grants of new
honours and privileges. By the time that any prince could establish his
dominions in a conquered province, the greater part of the territory was
parcelled out by him among his barons, with such jurisdiction and
immunities as raised them almost to sovereign power.

“At the same time, the kingdoms erected in so many different corners of
Spain, were of inconsiderable extent. The petty monarch was but little
elevated above his nobles. They, feeling themselves to be almost his
equals, acted as such; and could not look up to the kings of such
limited domains with the same reverence that the sovereigns of the great
monarchies in Europe were viewed by their subjects. While these
circumstances concurred in exalting the nobility, and in depressing the
royal authority, there were other causes which raised the cities in
Spain to consideration and power.

“As the open country, during the wars with the Moors, was perpetually
exposed to the excursions of the enemy, with whom no peace or truce was
so permanent as to prove any lasting security, self-preservation obliged
persons of all ranks to fix their residence in places of strength. The
castles of the barons, which in other countries afforded a commodious
retreat from the depredations of banditti, or from the transient
violence of any interior commotion, were unable to resist an enemy whose
operations were conducted with regular and persevering vigour. Cities,
in which great numbers united for their mutual defence, were the only
places in which people could reside with any prospect of safety. To this
was owing the rapid growth of those cities in Spain of which the
Christians recovered possession. All who fled from the Moorish yoke
resorted to them, as to an asylum; and in them the greater part of those
who took the field against the Mahomedans established their families.

“Several of these cities, during a longer or shorter course of years,
were the capitals of little states, and enjoyed all the advantages which
accelerate the increase of the inhabitants in every place that is the
seat of government.

“From these concurring causes, the number of cities in Spain at the
beginning of the fifteenth century had become considerable, and they
were peopled far beyond the proportion which was common in other parts
of Europe, except in Italy and the Low Countries. The Moors had
introduced manufactures into those cities while under their dominion.
The Christians who, by intermixture with them, had learned their arts,
continued to cultivate them.

“Trade, in several of the Spanish towns, appears to have been carried on
with vigour; and the spirit of commerce continued to preserve the number
of their inhabitants, as the sense of danger had first induced them to
crowd together. As the Spanish cities were populous, many of the
inhabitants were of a rank superior to those who resided in towns in
other countries in Europe.

“That cause, which contributed chiefly to their population, affected
equally persons of every condition, who flocked thither promiscuously,
in order to find shelter there, or in hopes of making a stand against
the enemy, with greater advantage than in any other station. The persons
elected as their representatives in the Cortes by the cities, or
promoted to offices of trust and dignity in the government of the
community, were often of such considerable rank in the kingdom, as
reflected lustre on their constituents, and on the stations wherein they
were placed.

“As it was impossible to carry on a continual war against the Moors
without some other military force than that which the barons were
obliged to bring into the field, in consequence of the feudal tenures,
it became necessary to have some troops, particularly a body of light
cavalry, in constant pay. It was one of the privileges of the nobles,
that their lands were exempt from the burden of taxes. The charge of
supporting the troops requisite for the public safety fell wholly on the
cities; and their kings being frequently obliged to call upon them for
aid, found it necessary to gain their favour by concessions, which not
only extended their immunities, but added to their wealth and power.

“When the influence of all these circumstances, peculiar to Spain, is
added to the general and common causes which contributed to aggrandize
cities in other countries of Europe, this will fully account for the
extensive privileges which they acquired, as well as for the
extraordinary consideration to which they attained, in all the Spanish
kingdoms.

“By these exorbitant privileges of the nobility, and this unusual power
of the cities in Spain, the royal prerogative was hemmed in on every
side, and reduced within very narrow bounds. Sensible of this, and
impatient of such restraint, several monarchs endeavoured, at various
junctures, and by different means, to enlarge their own jurisdiction.
Their power, however, or their abilities, were so unequal to the
undertaking, that their efforts were attended with little success.”

But when Ferdinand and Isabella found themselves at the head of the
united kingdoms of Spain, and delivered from the danger and interruption
of domestic wars, they were not only in a condition to resume, but were
able to prosecute with advantage, the schemes of extending the
prerogative, which their ancestors had attempted in vain. Ferdinand’s
profound sagacity in concerting his measures, his persevering industry
in conducting them, and his uncommon address in carrying them into
execution, fitted him admirably for an undertaking which required all
these talents. He undertook to extend the royal prerogative, by
abridging the privileges and power of the nobility, and circumscribing
their jurisdiction. He also annexed the grandmasterships of the three
religious orders to the crown.

“By address, by promises, and by threats, he prevailed on the knights of
each order to place Isabella and himself at their head. Innocent VIII.
and Alexander VI. gave this election the sanction of papal authority,
and subsequent pontiffs rendered the annexation of these masterships to
the crown perpetual.” But Ferdinand also did something of a very
opposite nature, in order to abridge, and at length be able to
annihilate the territorial jurisdiction of the nobility. He countenanced
and supported the association of the cities of Aragon and Castile,
called the Holy Brotherhood, and which dated as far back as 1260.

“This brotherhood exacted a certain contribution from each of the
associated towns; they levied a considerable body of troops, in order to
protect travellers and to pursue criminals; they appointed judges, who
opened their courts in various parts of the kingdom.

“Whoever was guilty of murder, robbery, or of any act that violated the
public peace, and was seized by the troops of the Brotherhood, was
carried before judges of their nomination, who, without paying any
regard to the exclusive and sovereign jurisdiction which the lord of the
place might claim, tried and condemned the criminal. By the
establishment of this fraternity, the prompt and impartial
administration of justice was restored, and, together with it, internal
tranquillity and order began to return. The nobles alone murmured at
this salutary institution. They complained of it as an encroachment on
one of their most valuable privileges. They remonstrated against it in a
high tone; and, on some occasions, refused to grant any aid to the
crown, unless it were abolished.

“Ferdinand, however, not only saw the good effects of the Holy
Brotherhood, with respect to the police of his kingdoms, but perceived
its tendency to abridge, and at length to annihilate, the territorial
jurisdiction of the nobility. He countenanced it on every occasion. He
supported it with the whole force of royal authority; and, besides the
expedients employed by him in common with the other monarchs of Europe,
he availed himself of this institution, which was peculiar to his
kingdom, in order to limit and abolish that independent jurisdiction of
the nobility, which was no less inconsistent with the authority of the
prince than with the order of society.

“But though Ferdinand by these measures considerably enlarged the
boundaries of the prerogative, and acquired a degree of influence and
power far beyond what any of his predecessors had enjoyed, yet the
limitations of the royal authority, as well as the barriers against its
encroachments, continued to be many and strong. The spirit of liberty
was vigorous among the people of Spain; the spirit of independence was
high among the nobility; and though the love of glory, peculiar to the
Spaniards in every period of their history, prompted them to support
Ferdinand with zeal in his foreign operations, and to afford him such
aid as enabled him not only to undertake, but to execute great
enterprises, he reigned over his subjects with a jurisdiction less
extensive than that of any of the great monarchs of Europe.

“During a considerable part of the reign of his successor, Charles V.,
the prerogative of the Spanish Crown was equally circumscribed.”

The Cortes of Castile were indeed prevailed on to proclaim him king, on
condition that his mother should resume her authority, if she ever
recovered her reason, and at the same time they voted him a free gift of
600,000 ducats, to be paid in three years; a sum more considerable than
had ever been granted to any former monarch.

But the Castilians speedily became discontented with Charles, on account
of the favour he bestowed exclusively upon the Flemings, who engrossed
all honours, offices, and benefices, and who remitted into the Low
Countries, in the course of ten months, no less a sum than a million one
hundred thousand ducats.

The opposition Charles had to struggle with in the Cortes of Aragon was
more violent and obstinate than that which he had overcome in Castile;
after long delays, however, and with much difficulty, he persuaded the
members to confer on him the title of king in conjunction with his
mother. At the same time he bound himself by that solemn oath, which the
Aragonese exacted of their kings, never to violate any of their rights
or liberties. When a donation was demanded they were still more
intractable. Many months elapsed before they would agree to grant
Charles 200,000 ducats.

From Aragon Charles proceeded to Catalonia, where he wasted as much
time, encountered more difficulties, and gained less money.

Meanwhile the oppressive schemes of the Flemings provoked a confederacy
of Segovia, Toledo, Seville, and several other cities of the first rank,
for the defence of their rights and privileges; “and notwithstanding the
silence of the nobility who, on this occasion,” says Robertson,
“testified neither the public spirit nor the resolution which became
their order, the confederates laid before the king a full view of the
kingdom and of the mal-administration of his favourites. The confederacy
of these cities, at this juncture, was the beginning of that famous
union among the commons of Castile, which not long after threw the
kingdom into such violent convulsions as shook the throne, and almost
overturned the constitution.

“Charles’s election to the imperial crown increased the dissatisfaction.
To be deprived of the presence of their sovereign, and to be subjected
to the government of a viceroy and his council, were the immediate
consequences of this new dignity. To see the blood of their countrymen
shed in quarrels wherein the nation had no concern, to behold its
treasures wasted in supporting the splendor of a foreign title; to be
plunged into the chaos of Italian and German politics, were effects of
this event almost as unavoidable.”

An insurrection in Valencia, directed against the oppression of the
grandees, which was great in that kingdom, gave rise to an association
that laid their grievances before Charles, who, irritated at the moment
against the nobles who had opposed his going to Germany, authorized them
to continue in arms. Upon which they expelled all the nobles from the
city, and committed the government to magistrates of their own election,
and distinguished their conviction by the name of Germanada.

The cities of Castile also associated to crave redress of wrongs from
Charles, but he artfully avoided admitting their deputation, and
summoned the Cortes of Castile to meet at Compostella, in Galicia. He
called this assembly only to obtain another donative, in order to appear
in Germany with splendour suited to the Imperial dignity. To appoint a
meeting of the Cortes in so remote a province, and to demand a new
subsidy before the time for paying the former was expired, were
innovations of a most dangerous tendency; and among a people not only
jealous of their liberties, but accustomed to supply the wants of their
sovereigns with a very frugal hand, excited an universal alarm. The
magistrates of Toledo remonstrated against both these measures in a very
high tone; the inhabitants of Valladolid, who expected that the Cortes
would have been held in that city, were so enraged, that they took arms
in a tumultuary manner; and if Charles, with his foreign counsellors,
had not fortunately made their escape during a violent tempest, they
would have massacred all the Flemings, and have prevented him from
continuing his journey towards Compostella.

“Every city through which he passed petitioned against holding a Cortes
in Galicia, a point with regard to which Charles was inflexible. But
though the utmost influence had been exerted by the ministers, in order
to procure a choice of representatives favourable to their designs, such
was the danger, that, at the opening of the assembly, there appeared
among many of the members unusual symptoms of ill-humour which
threatened a fierce opposition to all the measures of the court. No
representatives were sent by Toledo; for the lot, according to which, by
ancient custom, the election was determined in that city, having fallen
upon two persons devoted to the Flemish ministers, their fellow-citizens
refused to grant them a commission in the usual form, and in their stead
made choice of two deputies, whom they empowered to repair to
Compostella, and to protest against the lawfulness of the Cortes
assembled there. The representatives of Salamanca refused to take the
usual oath of fidelity, unless Charles consented to change the place of
meeting. Those of Toro, Madrid, Cordova, and several other places,
declared the demand of another donative to be unprecedented,
unconstitutional, and unnecessary. All the arts, however, which
influence popular assemblies, bribes, promises, threats, and even force,
were employed, in order to gain members. The nobles, soothed by the
respectful assiduity with which Chievres and the other Flemings paid
court to them, or instigated by a mean jealousy of that spirit of
independence which they saw rising among the commons, openly favoured
the pretensions of the court, or at the utmost did not oppose them; and
at last, in contempt not only of the sentiments of the nation, but of
the ancient forms of the constitution, a majority voted to grant the
donative for which the emperor had applied. Together with this grant,
the Cortes laid before Charles a representation of those grievances
whereof his people complained, and in their name craved redress; but he,
having obtained from them all that he could expect, paid no attention to
this ill-timed petition, which it was no longer dangerous to disregard.”

No sooner was it known that the Cortes in Galicia had granted Charles a
free gift without obtaining the redress of any one grievance, than it
produced a civil war. There was an insurrection at Toledo, Segovia,
Burgos, and other cities, which Adrian, whom Charles had left regent in
Spain, failed to put down, and after having been defeated at Segovia,
disbanded his troops. Robertson says:

“Nor were the proceedings of the commons the effects merely of popular
and tumultuary rage; they aimed at obtaining redress of their political
grievances, and an establishment of public liberty on a secure basis,
objects worthy of all the zeal which they discovered in contending for
them. The feudal government in Spain was at that time in a state more
favourable to liberty than in any other of the great European kingdoms.
This was owing chiefly to the number of great cities in that country, a
circumstance I have already taken notice of, and which contributes more
than any other to mitigate the rigour of the feudal institutions, and to
introduce a more liberal and equal form of government. The inhabitants
of every city formed a great corporation, with valuable immunities and
privileges; they were delivered from a state of subjection and
vassalage; they were admitted to a considerable share in the
legislature; they had acquired the arts of industry, without which
cities cannot subsist; they had accumulated wealth, by engaging in
commerce; and being free and independent themselves, were ever ready to
act as the guardians of the public freedom and independence. The genius
of the internal government established among the inhabitants of cities,
which, even in countries where despotic power prevails most, is
democratical and republican, rendered the idea of liberty familiar and
dear to them. Their representatives in the Cortes were accustomed, with
equal spirit, to check the encroachments of the king and the oppression
of the nobles. They endeavoured to extend the privileges of their own
order; they laboured to shake off the remaining incumbrances with which
the spirit of feudal policy, favourable only to the nobles, had burdened
them; and conscious of being the most considerable orders in the state,
were ambitious of becoming the most powerful.”

Hence a general convention was held for a new association, that assumed
the name of the Holy Junta; which, through the resolution of their
leader Padilla, obtained possession of the person of Joanna, and carried
on the government in her name; “as the Castilians,” says Robertson, “who
idolized the memory of Isabella, retained a wonderful attachment to her
daughter, no sooner was it known that she had consented to assume the
reins of government, than the people expressed the most universal and
immoderate joy; and believing her recovery to be complete, ascribed it
to a miraculous interposition of Heaven, in order to rescue their
country from the oppression of foreigners. The Junta, conscious of the
reputation and power which they had acquired by seeming to act under the
royal authority, were no longer satisfied with requiring Adrian to
resign the office of regent; they detached Padilla to Valladolid with a
considerable body of troops, ordering him to seize such members of the
council as were still in that city, to conduct them to Tordesillas, and
to bring away the seals of the kingdom, the public archives and treasury
books. Padilla, who was received by the citizens as the deliverer of his
country, executed his commission with great exactness; permitting
Adrian, however, still to reside in Valladolid, though only as a private
person, and without any shadow of power.

“The emperor, to whom frequent accounts of these transactions were
transmitted while he was still in Flanders, was sensible of his own
imprudence and that of his ministers, in having despised too long the
murmurs and remonstrances of the Castilians. He beheld, with deep
concern, a kingdom, the most valuable of any he possessed, and in which
lay the strength and sinews of his power, just ready to disown his
authority, and on the point of being plunged in to all the miseries of
civil war. But though his presence might have averted this calamity, he
could not, at that time, visit Spain without endangering the Imperial
crown, and allowing the French king full leisure to execute his
ambitious schemes. The only point now to be deliberated upon, was,
whether he should attempt to gain the malcontents by indulgence and
concessions, or prepare directly to suppress them by force; and he
resolved to make trial of the former, while, at the same time, if that
should fail of success, he prepared for the latter. For this purpose, he
issued circular letters to all the cities of Castile, exhorting them in
most gentle terms, and with assurance of full pardon, to lay down their
arms; he promised such cities as had continued faithful, not to exact
from them the subsidy granted in the late Cortes, and offered the same
favour to such as returned to their duty; he engaged that no office
should be conferred for the future upon any but native Castilians. On
the other hand, he wrote to the nobles, exciting them to appear with
vigour in defence of their own rights, and those of the crown, against
the exorbitant claims of the commons; he appointed the high admiral Don
Fadrique Enriquez, and the high constable of Castile, Don Inigo de
Velasco, two noblemen of great abilities as well as influence, regents
of the kingdom in conjunction with Adrian; and he gave them full power
and instructions, if the obstinacy of the malcontents should render it
necessary, to vindicate the royal authority by force of arms.

“These concessions, which, at the time of his leaving Spain, would have
fully satisfied the people, came now too late to produce any effect. The
Junta, relying on the unanimity with which the nation submitted to their
authority, elated with the success which hitherto had accompanied all
their undertakings, and seeing no military force collected to defeat or
obstruct their designs, aimed at a more thorough reformation of
political abuses. They had been employed for some time in preparing a
remonstrance, containing a large enumeration, not only of the grievances
of which they craved redress, but of such new regulations as they
thought necessary for the security of their liberties. This
remonstrance, which is divided into many articles relating to all the
different members of which the constitution was composed, as well as the
various departments in the administration of government, furnishes us
with more authentic evidence concerning the intentions of the Junta,
than can be drawn from the testimony of the later Spanish historians,
who lived in times when it became fashionable and even necessary to
represent the conduct of the malcontents in the worst light, and as
flowing from the worst motives. After a long preamble concerning the
various calamities under which the nation groaned, and the errors and
corruption in government to which these were to be imputed, they take
notice of the exemplary patience wherewith the people had endured them,
until self-preservation, and the duty which they owed to their country,
had obliged them to assemble, in order to provide in a legal manner for
their own safety, and that of the constitution: For this purpose they
demanded that the king would be pleased to return to his Spanish
dominions and reside there, as all their former monarchs had done; that
he would not marry but with consent of the Cortes; that if he should be
obliged at any time to leave the kingdom, it shall not be lawful to
appoint any foreigner to be regent; that the present nomination of
Cardinal Adrian to that office shall instantly be declared void; that he
would not, at his return, bring along with him any Flemings or other
strangers; that no foreign troops shall, on any pretence whatever, be
introduced into the kingdom; that none but natives shall be capable of
holding any office or benefice either in church or state; that no
foreigner shall be naturalized; that free quarters shall not be granted
to soldiers, nor to the members of the king’s household, for any longer
time than six days, and that only when the court is in progress; that
all the taxes shall be reduced to the same state they were in at the
death of queen Isabella; that all alienations of the royal demesnes or
revenues since that queen’s death shall be resumed; that all new offices
created since that period shall be abolished; that the subsidy granted
by the late Cortes in Galicia shall not be exacted; that in all future
Cortes each city shall send one representative of the clergy, one of the
gentry, and one of the commons, each to be elected by his own order;
that the crown shall not influence or direct any city with regard to the
choice of its representatives; that no member of the Cortes shall
receive an office or pension from the king, either for himself or for
any of his family, under pain of death, and confiscation of his goods;
that each city or community shall pay a competent salary to its
representative for his maintenance during his attendance on the Cortes;
_that the Cortes shall assemble once in three years at least, whether
summoned by the king or not_, and shall then enquire into the
observation of the articles now agreed upon, and deliberate concerning
public affairs; that the rewards which have been given or promised to
any of the members of Cortes held in Galicia, shall be revoked; that it
shall be declared a capital crime to send gold, silver, or jewels out of
the kingdom; that judges shall have fixed salaries assigned them, and
shall not receive any share of the fines and forfeitures of persons
condemned by them; that no grant of the goods of persons accused shall
be valid, if given before sentence was pronounced against them; that all
privileges which the nobles have at any time obtained, to the prejudice
of the commons, shall be revoked; that the government of cities or towns
shall not be put into the hands of noblemen; that the possessions of the
nobility shall be subject to all public taxes in the same manner as
those of the commons; that such prelates as do not reside in their
dioceses six months in the year, shall forfeit their revenues during the
time they are absent; that the ecclesiastical judges and their officers
shall not exact greater fees than those which are paid in the secular
courts; that the king shall ratify and hold, as good service done to him
and to the kingdom, all the proceedings of the Junta, and pardon any
irregularities which the cities may have committed from an excess of
zeal in a good cause; that he shall promise and swear in the most solemn
manner to observe all these articles, and on no occasion attempt either
to elude, or to repeal them; and that he shall never solicit the pope or
any other prelate to grant him a dispensation or absolution from this
oath and promise.

“Such were the chief articles presented by the Junta to their sovereign.
As the feudal institutions in the several kingdoms of Europe were
originally the same, the genius of those governments which arose from
them bore a strong resemblance to each other, and the regulations which
the Castilians attempted to establish on this occasion, differ little
from those which other nations have laboured to procure in their
struggles with their monarchs for liberty. The grievances complained of,
and the remedies proposed by the English commons in their contests with
the princes of the house of Stuart, particularly resemble those upon
which the Junta now insisted. But the principles of liberty seem to have
been better understood, at this period, by the Castilians, than by any
other people in Europe; they had acquired more liberal ideas with
respect to their own rights and privileges; they had formed more bold
and generous sentiments concerning government; and discovered an extent
of political knowledge to which the English themselves did not attain
until more than a century afterwards.

“But the spirit of reformation among the Castilians, hitherto
unrestrained by authority, and emboldened by success, prompted the Junta
to propose innovations which, by alarming the other members of the
constitution, proved fatal to their cause. The nobles, who, instead of
obstructing, had favoured or connived at their proceedings, while they
confined their demands of redress to such grievances as had been
occasioned by the king’s want of experience, and by the imprudence and
rapaciousness of his foreign ministers, were filled with indignation
when the Junta began to touch the privileges of their order, and plainly
saw that the measures of the commons tended no less to break the power
of the aristocracy, than to limit the prerogatives of the crown. The
resentment which they had conceived on account of Adrian’s promotion to
the regency, abated considerably upon the emperor’s raising the
constable and admiral to joint power with him in that office; and as
their pride and dignity were less hurt by suffering the prince to
possess an extensive prerogative, than by admitting the high pretensions
of the people, they determined to give their sovereign the assistance
which he had demanded of them, and began to assemble their vassals for
that purpose.

“The Junta, meanwhile, expected with impatience the emperor’s answer to
their remonstrance, which they had appointed some of their number to
present. The members intrusted with this commission set out immediately
for Germany, but having received at different places certain
intelligence from court, that they could not venture to appear there
without endangering their lives, they stopped short in their journey,
and acquainted the Junta with the information which had been given them.
This excited such violent passions as transported the whole party beyond
all bounds of prudence or of moderation. That a king of Castile should
deny his subjects access into his presence, or refuse to listen to their
humble petitions, was represented as an act of tyranny so unprecedented
and intolerable, that nothing now remained but with arms in their hands
to drive away that ravenous band of foreigners which encompassed the
throne, who, after having devoured the wealth of the kingdom, found it
necessary to prevent the cries of an injured people from reaching the
ears of their sovereign. Many insisted warmly on approving a motion
which had formerly been made, for depriving Charles, during the life of
his mother, of the regal titles and authority which had been too rashly
conferred upon him, from a false supposition of her total inability for
government. Some proposed to provide a proper person to assist her in
the administration of public affairs, by marrying the queen to the
prince of Calabria, the heir of the Aragonese kings of Naples, who had
been detained in prison since the time that Ferdinand had dispossessed
his ancestors of their crown. All agreed that, as the hopes of obtaining
redress and security merely by presenting their requests to their
sovereign, had kept them too long in a state of inaction, and prevented
them from taking advantage of the unanimity with which the nation
declared in their favour, it was now necessary to collect their whole
force, and to exert themselves with vigour, in opposing this fatal
combination of the king and the nobility against their liberties.

“They soon took the field with twenty thousand men. After some success
and many mistakes in their military operations, the Junta was finally
defeated at Villalar, April 22d, 1522, and Padilla, their General, was
taken prisoner, and put to death the next day without even the form of a
trial. He spent the night in writing two letters, one to the city of
Toledo, and one to his wife.” They are his sufficient eulogy, and we
shall insert them here.


        _The Letter of Don John Padilla to the City of Toledo._

“To thee, the crown of Spain, and the light of the whole world, free
from the time of the mighty Goths: to thee, who, by shedding the blood
of strangers, as well as thy own blood, hast recovered liberty for
thyself and thy neighbouring cities, thy legitimate son, Juan de
Padilla, gives information, how by the blood of his body, thy ancient
victories are to be refreshed. If fate hath not permitted my actions to
be placed among your successful and celebrated exploits, the fault hath
been in my ill fortune, not in my good will. This I request of thee as
of a mother, to accept, since God hath given me nothing more to lose for
thy sake, than that which I am now to relinquish. I am more solicitous
about thy good opinion than about my own life. The shiftings of fortune,
which never stands still, are many. But this I see with infinite
consolation, that I, the least of thy children, suffer death for thee,
and that thou hast nursed at thy breasts such as may take vengeance for
my wrongs. Many tongues will relate the manner of my death, of which I
am still ignorant, though I know it to be near. My end will testify what
was my desire. My soul I recommend to thee as to the patroness of
Christianity. Of my body I say nothing, for it is not mine. I can write
nothing more, for at this very moment I feel the knife at my throat,
with greater dread of thy displeasure, than apprehension of my own
pain.”


                       _The Letter to his Wife._

  “SENORA,

“If your grief did not afflict me more than my own death, I should deem
myself perfectly happy. For the end of life being certain to all men,
the Almighty confers a mark of distinguishing favour upon that person,
for whom he appoints a death such as mine, which though lamented by
many, is nevertheless acceptable unto him. It would require more time
than I now have, to write anything that could afford you consolation.
_That_ my enemies will not grant me, nor do I wish to delay the
reception of that crown which I hope to enjoy. You may bewail your own
loss, but not my death, which, being so honourable, ought not to be
lamented by any. My spirit, for nothing else is left to me, I bequeath
to you. You will receive it, as the thing in this world which you value
most. I do not write to my father Pero Lopez, because I dare not; for
though I have shown myself to be his son in daring to lose my life, I
have not been the heir of his good fortune. I will not attempt to say
anything more, that I may not tire the executioner, who waits for me;
and that I may not excite a suspicion, that, in order to prolong my
life, I lengthen out my letter. My servant Sosia, an eyewitness, and to
whom I have communicated my most secret thoughts, will inform you of
what I cannot now write, and thus I rest, expecting the instrument of
your grief, and of my deliverance.” Sandov. Hist. vol. i. p. 478.


Padilla’s widow, Donna Maria Pacheco, showed herself worthy of her
husband, and prosecuted that cause in defence of which he had suffered.

“Respect for her sex, or admiration for her courage and abilities, as
well as sympathy with her misfortunes, and veneration for the memory of
her husband, secured her the same ascendant over the people which he had
possessed. The prudence and vigour with which she acted, justified that
confidence they placed in her. She wrote to the French general in
Navarre, encouraging him to invade Castile by the offer of powerful
assistance. She endeavoured by her letters and emissaries to revive the
spirit and hopes of the other cities. She raised soldiers, and exacted a
great sum from the clergy belonging to the cathedral, in order to defray
the expense of keeping them on foot. She employed every artifice that
could interest or inflame the populace. For this purpose she ordered
crucifixes to be used by her troops instead of colours, as if they had
been at war with the infidels and enemies of religion; she marched
through the streets of Toledo with her son, a young child, clad in deep
mourning seated on a mule, having a standard carried before him,
representing the manner of his father’s execution. By all these means
she kept the minds of the people in such perpetual agitation as
prevented their passions from subsiding, and rendered them insensible of
the dangers to which they were exposed, by standing alone in opposition
to the royal authority. While the army was employed in Navarre, the
regents were unable to attempt the reduction of Toledo by force; and all
their endeavours, either to diminish Donna Maria’s credit with the
people, or to gain her by large promises and the solicitations of her
brother the Marquis de Mondecar, proved ineffectual. Upon the expulsion
of the French out of Navarre, part of the army returned into Castile,
and invested Toledo. Even this made no impression on the intrepid and
obstinate courage of Donna Maria. She defended the town with vigour, her
troops in several sallies beat the royalists, and no progress was made
towards reducing the place, until the clergy, whom she had highly
offended by invading their property, ceased to support her. As soon as
they received information of the death of William de Croy, archbishop of
Toledo, whose possession of that see was their chief grievance, and that
the emperor had named a Castilian to succeed him, they openly turned
against her, and persuaded the people that she had acquired such
influence over them, by the force of enchantments, that she was assisted
by a familiar dæmon which attended her in the form of a Negro-maid, and
that by its suggestions she regulated every part of her conduct. The
credulous multitude, whom their impatience of a long blockade, and
despair of obtaining succours either from the cities formerly in
confederacy with them, or from the French, rendered desirous of peace,
took arms against her, and driving her out of the city, surrendered it
to the royalists. She retired to the citadel, which she defended with
amazing fortitude four months longer; and when reduced to the last
extremities, she made her escape in disguise, and fled to Portugal,
where she had many relations.

“Upon her flight, the citadel surrendered. Tranquillity was
re-established in Castile; and this bold attempt of the commons, like
all unsuccessful insurrections, contributed to confirm and extend the
power of the crown, which it was intended to moderate and abridge. The
Cortes still continued to make a part of the Castilian constitution, and
was summoned to meet whenever the king stood in need of money; but
instead of adhering to their ancient and cautious form of examining and
redressing public grievances, before they proceeded to grant any supply,
the more courtly custom of voting a donative in the first place was
introduced, and the sovereign having obtained all that he wanted, never
allowed them to enter into any inquiry, or to attempt any reformation
injurious to his authority. The privileges which the cities had enjoyed
were gradually circumscribed or abolished; _their commerce began from
this period to decline_; and becoming less wealthy and less populous,
they lost that power and influence which they had acquired in the
Cortes.”

Meanwhile there was civil war in Valencia, carried on by the Germanada,
to whom Charles had formerly granted the use of arms, against the
nobility, with whom he was, at the time of the grant, angry. At first he
left the nobles to fight their own battle, but after the victory of
Villalar he dispatched to their assistance a body of Castilian cavalry;
the insurrection was put down, and the republican government that had
been established was overthrown, the leaders suffering most cruel
deaths.

There were also disaffections in Aragon, and a formidable insurrection
in Majorca, and it seems as if it was only to the circumstance, that the
several kingdoms of Spain did not make common cause, that Charles owed
the preservation of his Spanish crowns.

On his return to Spain, after these commotions, he acted with the cool
prudence characteristic of him. After a rebellion so general, scarcely
twenty persons were punished capitally, and this clemency, together with
his care to avoid giving more offence, conciliated the war-wearied
people. The nobles also supported his authority against the commons,
whose late movements had been to them no less terrific than to the
emperor.

But it was only because Charles had not the power to do otherwise, that
he showed this clemency. In 1539, when wanting money to pay the Imperial
army, which had served him in Italy and elsewhere, “he assembled the
Cortes of Castile at Toledo, and having represented to them the
extraordinary expense of his military operations, together with the
great debts in which these had necessarily involved him, he proposed to
levy such supplies as the present exigency of his affairs demanded, by a
general excise on commodities. But the Spaniards already felt themselves
oppressed with a load of taxes unknown to their ancestors. They had
often complained that their country was drained not only of its wealth
but of its inhabitants, in order to prosecute quarrels in which it was
not interested, and to fight battles from which it could reap no
benefit, and they determined not to add voluntarily to their own
burdens, or to furnish the Emperor with the means of engaging in new
enterprises, no less ruinous to the kingdom than most of those which he
had hitherto carried on. The nobles, in particular, inveighed with great
vehemence against the imposition proposed, as an encroachment upon the
valuable and distinguishing privilege of their order, that of being
exempted from the payment of any tax. They demanded a conference with
the representatives of the cities concerning the state of the nation.
They contended that if Charles would imitate the example of his
predecessors, who had resided constantly in Spain, and would avoid
entangling himself in a multiplicity of transactions foreign to the
concerns of his Spanish dominions, the stated revenues of the crown
would be fully sufficient to defray the necessary expenses of
government. They represented to him, that it would be unjust to lay new
burdens upon the people, while this prudent and effectual method of
reëstablishing public credit, and securing national opulence, was
totally neglected. Charles, after employing arguments, entreaties, and
promises, but without success, in order to overcome their obstinacy,
dismissed the assembly with great indignation. From that period neither
the nobles nor the prelates have been called to these assemblies, on
pretence that such as pay no part of the public taxes, should not claim
any vote in laying them on. None have been admitted to the Cortes but
the procurators or representatives of eighteen cities. These, to the
number of thirty-six, being two from each community, form an assembly
which bears no resemblance either in power, or dignity, or independence,
to the ancient Cortes, and are absolutely at the devotion of the court
in all their determinations. Thus the imprudent zeal with which the
Castilian nobles had supported the regal prerogative, in opposition to
the claims of the commons during the commotions in the year 1521, proved
at last fatal to their own body. By enabling Charles to depress one of
the orders in the state, they destroyed that balance to which the
constitution owed its security, and put it in his power, or in that of
his successors, to humble the other, and to strip it gradually of its
most valuable privileges.”

Thus coolly, and without a groan of sympathy, does Robertson relate a
crime which extinguished a great nation.

But in this instance, it must be confessed, that the crime is less
liable to awaken the indignation of the historian and his readers,
because Might seems to _have made_ Right; this last outrage was not
resisted. When Charles V. thus coolly drove the ploughshare of
destruction over the constitutional rights of Spain, we cannot but
wonderingly inquire, where are those proud and turbulent Aragonese,
Catalonians, Castilians, from whom he and his courtiers so narrowly
escaped with life, when, in order to force from them 200,000 ducats, he
removed the Cortes from Valladolidto Compostella, by an exertion of his
royal prerogative? Where are those “Children of Toledo,” invoked by the
dying Padilla to take vengeance for the wrongs he suffered in their
cause? Whither, oh, whither has fled the spirit of the Holy Junta? What
has Spain been doing in these last score of years, that it should be so
changed? The ruthless will to destroy their constitutional rights in
Charles V.—that can surprise us no longer; that is the inherited spirit,
the essence of the family of Hapsburgh. How can any finite thing grow,
_except after its kind_? What is wonderful is not that Charles, with the
Pope, and Italy, and Flanders at his feet with the imperial army of
Germany to execute his behests, so managing by his cold diplomacy and
cunning hypocrisy all these forces, that they know not well what they
are doing it is not wonderful that all this was too much for the
material forces of Spain, or of any nation whatever, but it is
wonderful, and it needs explanation, that, in Spain itself, not a battle
was fought to sow the blood-seeds of a future harvest, not a solitary
voice even uttered the death-shriek of freedom over their
blood-honoured, time-honoured constitutional rights at the moment they
were finally strangled.

We must, in fact, look in another quite different direction for the
explanation of this fact, and, though it takes us a little out of the
course of our appointed work, we shall take leave to do so.

Liberty, that uncontained, uncontainable _spirit_, which is the life of
all life, at once its origin and its end, _what_ is it, _where_ is it?
_Where the Spirit of the Lord is_, says the apostle, _there is liberty_.
But let us not repeat these words technically; let us at once, ‘clearing
our minds of cant,’ seize upon their meaning. In vain for us is the
Spirit of the Lord, unless it is _incarnated_; and yet, when it becomes
incarnate, let us realize that none the less is it the uncontained and
uncontainable, and to be worshipped as such, neither in the temple nor
on the mountain, but in spirit and in truth. Liberty is nothing if it is
not the element of _manliness_. It exists for no nation any longer than
_manliness_ pervades the people. It is ITSELF EVOLVED from the manliness
of a people, and whatever may have been its triumphs on any soil, if the
men of that soil change or become no longer manly, we may wander among
the palaces or the cottages where they formerly dwelt, and inquire for
its whereabout in vain. Man cannot serve two masters, God and mammon.
When the moment for Charles V.’s master-stroke came, instead of those
men who once startled the echoes of the Sierras of Spain with their NO
to the demand of an encroaching royal prerogative, there are _ghouls_
only, that inhabit castle and cottage, city palace and city bizarre; the
activity, the energy, the life-blood of the country, has gone over the
sea;—for America has been discovered; the gold and silver mines of
Mexico and Peru have been opened a far off Eldorado, a _material_
‘fountain of immortal youth,’ that the _body_ may imbibe, has seized the
imagination and addressed every passion of the young men of the commons
of Spain. The trees of the garden are so fine for the eyes, that the
tree of life, which stands in the midst of the garden, is passed by,
until at last the words of doom have been pronounced, and there is no
winning the way back, but to fight with the flaming sword which turns
every way.

We have said and seen, in the foregoing pages, that the stronghold of
liberty is ever in THE COMMONS of a nation; and no nobility is
strengthened by manliness any farther, or any longer, than it makes
common cause with the rights of the commons. The nobility of Spain
deserted the commons in 1521, and this enabled Charles, in 1539, to do,
as far as their order was concerned, what we have just recorded. Still
there would have been hope for Spain, if—which is a fact very commonly
overlooked—the commons had not been far away from sacred fatherland,
drinking themselves drunk with the gold they had madly quaffed, after
having waded through seas of Indian blood to seize it. But it may be
asked, how could so base a quest have carried off noble men? How could
manly priests of the spirit of liberty have let the wine of immortality
be spilled, while they were rushing madly after what could, at best, be
of no value but as the chalice to hold it?

It is the child’s question, who wonders over the story of the chosen
people of the Bible, that they could stray away from their invisible God
and King after the stone and metal gods of the Pagans. Never was the
most sordid of objects so enveloped in the robes of an angel of light.
Who does not know that every innocent and lawful affection, every noble
and generous plan of usefulness to others, that the interests of
science, nay, even those of religion itself, can most easily take on
this garb of foreign adventure, after means to attain their object? And
were not the emblems of religion—the crosier and the bread of the
Lord—used freely by pope and prelate, to mystify and consecrate to the
imaginative and superstitious their own desire of action and adventure,
even their sordid lust of gold? Let us not revile, but LEARN that
liberty is a jealous god, who will have no other gods before her, but
inexorably visit on the children’s children the faithlessness of their
fathers to the Invisible Source, Guardian, Element, and End of a
nation’s life.

We do not pursue the history of Spain through the reigns of the other
kings of the House of Austria, although there might be much gathered to
illustrate our subject, even as late as the time of the War of
Succession, when the Catalonians were faithful to the House of Austria,
yet were heartlessly abandoned at last to the House of Bourbon, without
any stipulations for mercy made for them by those whose interests they
had defended so heroically. We must turn to the history of the
Netherlands.

The Netherlands came under the House of Austria, as we have already
seen, by the marriage of Maximilian I. with Mary, daughter of Charles
the Bold. The constitutional liberties of the people, in some instances,
dated as far back as the ninth century. Mr. Grattan, in his History of
the Netherlands, says:—

“From the time of Charlemagne, the people of the ancient Menapia formed
political associations to raise a barrier against the despotic violence
of the Franks. These associations were called _Gilden_, and in the Latin
of the times _Gildonia_. They comprised, besides their covenants for
mutual protection, an obligation which bound every member to give
succour to any other, in cases of illness, conflagration, or shipwreck.
But the growing force of these social compacts alarmed the quick-sighted
despotism of Charlemagne, and they were, consequently, prohibited both
by him and his successors. To give a notion of the importance of this
prohibition to the whole of Europe, it is only necessary to state that
the most ancient corporations (all which had preceded and engendered the
most valuable municipal rights) were nothing more than gilden.

Thus, to draw an example from Great Britain, the corporative charter of
Berwick still bears the title of _Charta Gildoniæ_. But the ban of the
sovereigns was without efficacy, when opposed to the popular will. The
gilden stood their ground; and within a century after the death of
Charlemagne, all Flanders was covered with corporate towns.

“This popular opposition took, however, another form in the northern
parts of the country, which still bore the common name of Friesland; for
there it was not merely local but national. The Frisons succeeded in
obtaining the sanction of the monarch to consecrate, as it were, those
rights which were established under the ancient forms of government. The
fact is undoubted; but the means which they employed are uncertain. It
appears most probable that this great privilege was the price of their
military services; for they held a high place in the victorious armies
of Charlemagne; and Turpin, the old French romancer, alluding to the
popular traditions of his time, represents the warriors of Friesland as
endowed with the most heroic valor.

“These rights, which the Frisons secured, according to their own
statements, from Charlemagne, but most undoubtedly from some one or
other of the earliest emperors, consisted, first, in the freedom of
every order of citizens; secondly, in the right of property,—a right
which admitted no authority of the sovereign to violate by confiscation,
except in cases of downright treason; thirdly, in the privilege of trial
by none but native judges, and according to their national usages;
fourthly, in a very narrow limitation of the military services which
they owed to the king; fifthly, in the hereditary title to feudal
property, in direct line, on payment of certain dues or rents. These
five principal articles sufficed to render Friesland, in its political
aspect, totally different from the other portions of the monarchy. Their
privileges secured, their property inviolable, their duties limited, the
Frisons were altogether free from the servitude which weighed down
France. It will soon be seen that these special advantages produced a
government nearly analogous to that which Magna Charta was the means of
founding at a later period in England.”

With respect to Flanders, Grattan also says:—

“It was about the year 1100 that the commons began to possess the
privilege of regulating their internal affairs: they appointed their
judges and magistrates, and attached to their authority the old custom
of ordering all the citizens to assemble or march when the summons of
the feudal lord sounded the signal for their assemblage or service. By
this means each municipal magistracy had the disposal of a force far
superior to those of the nobles, for the population of the towns
exceeded both in number and discipline the vassals of the seigniorial
lands. And these trained bands of the towns made war in a way very
different from that hitherto practised; for the chivalry of the country,
making the trade of arms a profession for life, the feuds of the
chieftains produced hereditary struggles, almost always slow, and
mutually disastrous. But the townsmen, forced to tear themselves from
every association of home and its manifold endearments, advanced boldly
to the object of the contest; never shrinking from the dangers of war,
from fear of that still greater one to be found in a prolonged struggle.
It is thus that it may be remarked, during the memorable conflicts of
the thirteenth century, that when even the bravest of the knights
advised their counts or dukes to grant or demand a truce, the citizen
militia never knew but one cry—‘To the charge.’”

With such a background of privilege in their history, it is not strange
that the Netherlands should have wished to make terms with Maximilian,
before acknowledging his authority. They stipulated for their rights,
and in a war which broke out in consequence of his attempt, after the
death of Mary, to usurp power, his person was actually seized and
imprisoned at Bruges; nor was he released until all Europe interposed;
and then, only on conditions which, with the perfidy characteristic of
his house, he violated as soon as he was free. “For,” as Mr. Grattan
says, “these kind of compacts were never observed by the princes of
those days, beyond the actual period of their capacity to violate them.
The emperor having entered the Netherlands at the head of 40,000 men,
Maximilian, so supported, soon showed his contempt for the obligations
he had sworn to, and had recourse to force for the extension of his
authority. The valour of the Flemings and the military talents of their
leader, Philip of Cleves, thwarted all his projects, and a new
compromise was entered into. Flanders paid a large subsidy, and held
fast her rights. The German troops were sent into Holland, and employed
for the extinction of the Hoeks; who, as they formed by far the weaker
faction, were now soon destroyed. That province, which had been so long
distracted by its intestine feuds, and which had consequently played but
an insignificant part in the transactions of the Netherlands, now
resumed its place; and acquired thenceforth new honor, till it at length
came to figure in all the importance of historical distinction.”

On obtaining the imperial crown, Maximilian was able to leave the scene
of trouble, and invest Philip I. with the government of the Netherlands.
The latter ensured his quiet possession of the place by renouncing all
pretensions to Friesland, re-establishing commercial relations with
England, whom Maximilian had offended, and taking care to consult the
States-General on his projects of marriage with Joanna of Castile. His
reign was rendered remarkable by the war of Friesland in defence of its
independence against Albert of Saxony, to whom Maximilian had, as
emperor, granted the stadtholdership, as reward for services rendered.
In this war Albert took by assault the town of Leuwaarden, on which
occasion he had all the chief burghers _impaled_. But, fortunately for
the country, he died in 1500, without having succeeded in his projects
of usurpation.

In what spirit Charles V. treated his paternal heritage, may be judged
by his conduct towards Ghent, when it attempted, in 1529, “to vindicate
its rights and privileges against the exactions of his sister Margaret,
whom Maximilian had made Governess of the Netherlands,” after the death
of Philip.

We quote the words of Robertson:—

“Having received orders from her brother to invade France, with all the
forces she could raise, she assembled the States of the United
Provinces, and obtained from them a subsidy of 1,200,000 florins, to
defray the expense of that undertaking. Of this sum, the county of
Flanders was obliged to pay a third part as its proportion. But the
citizens of Ghent, the most considerable city in that country, averse to
a war with France, with which they carried on an extensive and gainful
commerce, refused to pay their quota, and contended, that in consequence
of stipulations between them and the ancestors of their present
sovereign, the Emperor, no tax could be levied upon them, unless they
had given their express consent to the imposition of it. The governess,
on the other hand, maintained, that as the subsidy of 1,200,000 florins
had been granted by the States of Flanders, of which their
representatives were members, they were bound, of course, to conform to
what was enacted by them, as it is the first principle in society on
which the tranquillity and order of government depend, that the
inclinations of the minority must be overruled by the judgment and
decision of the superior number. The citizens of Ghent, however, were
not willing to relinquish a privilege of such high importance as that
which they claimed. Having been accustomed, under the government of the
house of Burgundy, to enjoy extensive immunities, and to be treated with
much indulgence, they disdained to sacrifice to the delegated power of a
regent, those rights and liberties which they had often and successfully
asserted against their greatest princes. The queen, though she
endeavoured at first to soothe them, and to reconcile them to their duty
by various concessions, was at last so much irritated by the obstinacy
with which they adhered to their claim, that she ordered all the
citizens of Ghent, on whom she could lay hold, in any part of the
Netherlands, to be arrested. But this rash action made an impression
very different from what she expected, on men whose minds were agitated
with all the violent passions which indignation at oppression and zeal
for liberty inspire. Less affected with the danger of their friends and
companions, than irritated at the governess, they openly despised her
authority and sent deputies to the other towns of Flanders, conjuring
them not to abandon their country at such a juncture, but to concur with
them in vindicating its rights against the encroachments of a woman who
either did not know or did not regard their immunities. All but a few
inconsiderable towns declined entering into a confederacy against the
governess; they joined, however, in petitioning her to put off the term
for payment of the tax so long, that they might have it in their power
to send some of their number into Spain, in order to lay their title to
exemption before their sovereign. This she granted with some difficulty.
But Charles received their commissioners with an haughtiness to which
they were not accustomed from their ancient princes, and enjoining them
to yield the same respectful obedience to his sister, which they owed to
him in person, remitted the examination of their claim to the council of
Malines. This court, which is properly a standing committee of the
parliament, or States of the country, and which possesses the supreme
jurisdiction in all matters, civil as well as criminal, pronounced the
claim of the citizens of Ghent to be ill-founded, and appointed them
forthwith to pay their proportion of the tax.”

An insurrection was the consequence, in which the Netherlanders relied
upon the assistance of Charles’s enemy, the king of France. But it was
the interest or the humour of Francis, at the moment, rather to
communicate their intentions to the emperor, to whom he at the same time
granted a free passage through his dominions to the Netherlands. Thus
abandoned, as Robertson continues:

“The near approach of danger made them at last so sensible of their own
folly, that they sent ambassadors to Charles, imploring his mercy, and
offering to set open their gates at his approach. The emperor, without
vouchsafing any other answer, than that he would appear among them as
their sovereign, with sceptre and sword in his hand, began his march at
the head of his troops. Though he chose to enter the city on the
twenty-fourth of February, his birth-day, he was touched with nothing of
that tenderness or indulgence which was natural toward the place of his
nativity. Twenty-six of the principal citizens were put to death; a
greater number was sent into banishment; _the city was declared to have
forfeited all its privileges and immunities_; the revenues belonging to
it were confiscated; _its ancient form of government was abolished_; the
nomination of its magistrates was vested for the future in the emperor
and his successors; _a new system of laws and political administration
was prescribed_; and, in order to bridle the seditious spirit of the
citizens, orders were given to erect a strong citadel, for defraying the
expense of which a fine of 180,000 florins was imposed on the
inhabitants, together with an annual tax of 6,000 florins for the
support of the garrison. By these rigorous proceedings, Charles not only
punished the citizens of Ghent, but set an awful example of severity
before the other subjects in the Netherlands, whose immunities and
privileges, _partly the effect, partly the cause of their extensive
commerce_, circumscribed the prerogative of their sovereign within very
narrow bounds, and often stood in the way of measures which he wished to
undertake, or fettered and retarded him in his operations.”

We do not relate the shameful conduct of Charles to Francis, at this
time, being obliged by the limitations of our plan to confine ourselves
principally to the crimes of the House of Austria against liberty and
law, and to omit its bad faith towards brother despots.

Before we go on to speak of the atrocious reign of Philip II. over the
Netherlands, we will copy a paragraph from Mr. Grattan, in which is
described the condition of the country at the time of his accession,
which he introduces with some references to the causes of its
prosperity.

“The amazing increase of commerce was, above all other considerations,
the cause of the growth of liberty in the Netherlands. The Reformation
opened the minds of men to that intellectual freedom, without which
political enfranchisement is a worthless privilege. The invention of
printing opened a thousand channels to the flow of erudition and talent,
and sent them out from the reservoirs of individual possession to
fertilise the whole domain of human nature. War, which seems to be an
instinct of man, and which particular instances of heroism often raise
to the dignity of a passion, was reduced to a science, and made
subservient to those great principles of policy in which society began
to perceive its only chance of durable good. Manufactures attained a
state of high perfection, and went on progressively with the growth of
wealth and luxury. The opulence of the towns of Brabant and Flanders was
without any previous example in the state of Europe. A merchant of
Bruges took upon himself alone the security for the ransom of John the
Fearless, taken at the battle of Nicopolis, amounting to 200,000 ducats.
A provost of Valenciennes repaired to Paris at one of the great fairs
periodically held there, and purchased on his own account every article
that was for sale. At a repast given by one of the counts of Flanders to
the Flemish magistrates, the seats they occupied were unfurnished with
cushions. Those proud burghers folded their sumptuous cloaks and sat on
them. After the feast they were retiring without retaining these
important and costly articles of dress; and on a courtier reminding them
of their apparent neglect, the burgomaster of Bruges replied, ‘We
Flemings are not in the habit of carrying away the cushions after
dinner!’ The meetings of the different towns for the sports of archery
were signalised by the most splendid display of dress and decoration.
The archers were habited in silk, damask, and the finest linen, and
carried chains of gold of great weight and value. Luxury was at its
height among women. The queen of Philip the Fair of France, on a visit
to Bruges, exclaimed, with astonishment not unmixed with envy, I thought
myself the only queen here; but I see six hundred others who appear more
so than I.

“The external relations of the country presented an aspect of prosperity
and peace. England was closely allied to it by queen Mary’s marriage
with Philip; France, fatigued with war, had just concluded with it a
five years’ truce; Germany, paralyzed by religious dissensions,
exhausted itself in domestic quarrels; the other states were too distant
or too weak to inspire any uneasiness; and nothing appeared wanting for
the public weal. Nevertheless there was something dangerous and alarming
in the situation of the Low Countries; but the danger consisted wholly
in the connection between the monarch and the people, and the alarm was
not sounded till the mischief was beyond remedy.

“Philip had only once visited the Netherlands before his accession to
sovereign power. Being at that time twenty-two years of age, his
opinions were formed and his prejudices deeply rooted. Everything that
he observed on this visit was calculated to revolt both. The frank
cordiality of the people appeared too familiar. The expression of
popular rights sounded like the voice of rebellion. Even the
magnificence displayed in his honor offended his jealous vanity. From
that moment he seems to have conceived an implacable aversion to the
country, in which alone, of all his vast possessions, he could not
display the power or inspire the terror of despotism.

“The sovereign’s dislike was fully equalled by the disgust of his
subjects. His haughty severity and vexatious etiquette revolted their
pride as well as their plain dealing; and the moral qualities of their
new sovereign were considered with loathing. The commercial and
political connection between the Netherlands and Spain had given the two
people ample opportunities for mutual acquaintance. The dark, vindictive
dispositions of the latter inspired a deep antipathy in those whom
civilisation had softened and liberty rendered frank and generous; and
the new sovereign seemed to embody all that was repulsive and odious in
the nation of which he was the type.

“Philip knew well that force alone was insufficient to reduce such a
people to slavery. He succeeded in persuading the states to grant him
considerable subsidies, some of which were to be paid by instalments
during a period of nine years. That was gaining a great step towards his
designs, as it superseded the necessity of a yearly application to the
three orders, the guardians of the public liberty. At the same time he
sent secret agents to Rome, to obtain the approbation of the pope to his
insidious but most effective plan for placing the whole of the clergy in
dependence upon the crown. He also kept up the army of Spaniards and
Germans which his father had formed on the frontiers of France; and
although he did not remove from their employments the functionaries
already in place, he took care to make no new appointments to office
among the natives of the Netherlands.

“In the midst of these cunning preparations for tyranny, Philip was
suddenly attacked in two quarters at once; by Henry II. of France, and
by Pope Paul IV.”

The important results of these two wars, the alliance of France, and the
support of the Pope, results brought about by the incredible baseness
and hypocrisy of Philip; together with the hostility of Elizabeth of
England, which he provoked by the treaty of Chateau-Cambresis, (1559,)
were all made subservient to the grand design of consolidating despotism
in the Netherlands.

“To lead his already deceived subjects the more surely into the snare,
he announced his intended departure on a short visit to Spain; and
created for the period of his absence a provisional government, chiefly
composed of the leading men among the Belgian nobility. He flattered
himself that the states, dazzled by the illustrious illusion thus
prepared, would cheerfully grant to this provisional government the
right of levying taxes during the temporary absence of the sovereign. He
also reckoned on the influence of the clergy in the national assembly,
to procure the revival of the edicts against heresy, which he had gained
the merit of suspending. These, with many minor details of profound
duplicity, formed the principal features of a plan, which, if
successful, would have reduced the Netherlands to the wretched state of
colonial dependence by which Naples and Sicily were held in the tenure
of Spain.

“As soon as the states had consented to place the whole powers of
government in the hands of the new administration for the period of the
king’s absence, the royal hypocrite believed his scheme secure, and
flattered himself he had established an instrument of durable despotism.
The composition of this new government was a masterpiece of political
machinery. It consisted of several councils, in which the most
distinguished citizens were entitled to a place, in sufficient numbers
to deceive the people with a show of representation, but not enough to
command a majority, which was sure on any important question to rest
with the titled creatures of the court. The edicts against heresy, soon
adopted, gave to the clergy an almost unlimited power over the lives and
fortunes of the people. But almost all the dignitaries of the church
being men of great respectability and moderation, chosen by the body of
the inferior clergy, these extraordinary powers excited little alarm.
Philip’s project was suddenly to replace these virtuous ecclesiastics by
others of his own choice, as soon as the states broke up from their
annual meeting; and for this intention he had procured the secret
consent and authority of the court of Rome.

“In support of these combinations, the Belgian troops were completely
broken up and scattered in small bodies over the country. The whole of
this force, so redoubtable to the fears of despotism, consisted of only
3000 cavalry. It was now divided into fourteen companies (or squadrons
in the modern phraseology,) under the command of as many independent
chiefs, so as to leave little chance of any principle of union reigning
among them. But the German and Spanish troops in Philip’s pay were
cantoned on the frontiers, ready to stifle any incipient effort in
opposition to his plans. In addition to these imposing means for their
execution, he had secured a still more secret and more powerful
support;—a secret article in the treaty of Chateau-Cambresis obliged the
king of France to assist him with the whole armies of France against his
Belgian subjects, should they prove refractory. Thus the late war, of
which the Netherlands had borne all the weight, and earned all the
glory, only brought about the junction of the defeated enemy with their
own king for the extinction of their national independence.

“To complete the execution of this system of perfidy, Philip convened an
assembly of all the states at Ghent, in the month of July, 1559. This
meeting of the representatives of the three orders of the state offered
no apparent obstacle to Philip’s views. The clergy, alarmed at the
progress of the new doctrines, gathered more closely round the
government of which they required the support. The nobles had lost much
of their ancient attachment to liberty; and had become, in various ways,
dependent on the royal favour. Many of the first families were then
represented by men possessed rather of courage and candour than of
foresight and sagacity. That of Nassau, the most distinguished of all,
seemed the least interested in the national cause. A great part of its
possessions were in Germany and France, where it had recently acquired
the sovereign principality of Orange. It was only from the third
order—that of the commons—that Philip had to expect any opposition.
Already, during the war, it had shown some discontent, and had insisted
on the nomination of commissioners to control the accounts and the
disbursements of the subsidies. But it seemed improbable, that among
this class of men, any would be found capable of penetrating the
manifold combinations of the king, and disconcerting his designs.

“Anthony Perrenotte de Granvelle, bishop of Arras, who was considered as
Philip’s favourite counsellor, but who was in reality no more than his
docile agent, was commissioned to address the assembly in the name of
his master, who spoke only Spanish. His oration was one of cautious
deception, and contained the most flattering assurances of Philip’s
attachment to the people of the Netherlands. It excused the king for not
having nominated his only son Don Carlos to reign over them in his name;
alleging, as a proof of his royal affection, that he preferred giving
them as governant a Belgian princess, Madame Marguerite, duchess of
Parma, the natural daughter of Charles V. by a young lady, a native of
Audenarde. Fair promises and fine words were thus lavished in profusion
to gain the confidence of the deputies.

“But notwithstanding all the talent, the caution, and the mystery of
Philip and his minister, there was among the nobles one man who saw
through all. This individual, endowed with many of the highest
attributes of political genius, and pre-eminently with judgment, the
most important of all, entered, fearlessly into the contest against
tyranny—despising every personal sacrifice for the country’s good.
Without making himself suspiciously prominent, he privately warned some
members of the states of the coming danger. Those in whom he confided
did not betray the trust. They spread among the other deputies the
alarm, and pointed out the danger to which they had been so judiciously
awakened. The consequence was, a reply to Philip’s demand, in vague and
general terms, without binding the nation by any pledge; and an
unanimous entreaty that he would diminish the taxes, withdraw the
foreign troops, and entrust no official employments to any but natives
of the country.

“Philip was utterly astounded at all this. In the first moment of his
vexation he imprudently cried out, ‘Would ye, then, also bereave _me_ of
my place; I, who am a Spaniard?’ But he soon recovered his self-command,
and resumed his usual mask; expressed his regret at not having sooner
learned the wishes of the state; promised to remove the foreign troops
within three months; and set off for Zealand, with assumed composure,
but filled with the fury of a discovered traitor and humiliated despot.

“A fleet under the command of count Horn, the admiral of the United
Provinces, waited at Flessingue to form his escort to Spain. At the very
moment of his departure, William of Nassau, prince of Orange and
governor of Zealand, waited on him to pay his official respects. The
king, taking him apart from the other attendant nobles, recommended him
to hasten the execution of several gentlemen and wealthy citizens
attached to the newly introduced religious opinions. Then, quite
suddenly, whether in the random impulse of suppressed rage, or that his
piercing glance discovered William’s secret feelings in his countenance,
he accused him with having been the means of thwarting his designs.
‘Sire,’ replied Nassau, ‘it was the work of the national states.’—‘No!’
cried Philip, grasping him furiously by the arm; ‘it was not done by the
states, but by you, and you alone!’”

“This glorious accusation was not repelled. He who had saved his country
in unmasking the designs of its tyrant, admitted by his silence his
title to the hatred of the one and the gratitude of the other. On the
20th of August, Philip embarked and set sail; turning his back for ever
on the country which offered the first check to his despotism; and,
after a perilous voyage, he arrived in that which permitted a free
indulgence to his ferocious and sanguinary career.

“For some time after Philip’s departure, the Netherlands continued to
enjoy considerable prosperity. From the period of the peace of
Chateau-Cambresis, commerce and navigation had acquired new and
increasing activity. The fisheries, but particularly that of herrings,
became daily more important; that one alone occupying 2000 boats. While
Holland, Zealand, and Friesland made this progress in their peculiar
branches of industry, the southern provinces were not less active or
successful. Spain and the colonies offered such a mart for the objects
of their manufacture, that in a single year they received from Flanders
fifty large ships, filled with articles of household furniture and
utensils. The exportation of woollen goods amounted to enormous sums.
Bruges alone sold annually to the amount of 4,000,000 florins of stuffs
of Spanish, and as much of English, wool; and the least value of the
florin then was quadruple its present worth. The commerce with England,
though less important than that with Spain, was calculated yearly at
24,000,000 florins, which was chiefly clear profit to the Netherlands,
as their exportations consisted almost entirely of objects of their own
manufacture. Their commercial relations with France, Germany, Italy,
Portugal, and the Levant, were daily increasing. Antwerp was the centre
of this prodigious trade. Several sovereigns, among others Elizabeth of
England, had recognized agents in that city, equivalent to consuls of
the present times; and loans of immense amount were frequently
negotiated by them with wealthy merchants, who furnished them, not in
negotiable bills or for unredeemable debentures, but in solid gold, and
on a simple acknowledgment.

“Flanders and Brabant were still the richest and most flourishing
portions of the state. Some municipal fêtes given about this time afford
a notion of their opulence. On one of these occasions the town of
Mechlin sent a deputation to Antwerp, consisting of 326 horsemen dressed
in velvet and satin with gold and silver ornaments; while those of
Brussels consisted of 340 as splendidly equipped, and accompanied by
seven huge triumphal chariots and seventy-eight carriages of various
constructions,—a prodigious number for those days.”

We cannot give a complete account of the contest which Philip II. waged
with the people of these rich and free provinces. That contest brought
before the world the consummate ability and virtue of the first William
of Orange, who at an early day penetrated, as we have seen, the designs
of the tyrant, and until the unfortunate day in which he was murdered by
the third assassin whom Philip had educated for the purpose, stood for
the rights of his nation, glorious both in victory and defeat. We will
make a few extracts to show the character of the events, happy if we
succeed in sending our readers to study out all the details in
Schiller’s Revolt of the Netherlands, and Mr. Grattan’s more extensive
history of the country from its origin to the battle of Waterloo.

“The new bishops were to a man most violent, intolerant, and it may be
conscientious, opponents to the wide-spreading doctrines of reform. The
execution of the edicts against heresy was confided to them. The
provincial governors and inferior magistrates were commanded to aid them
with a strong arm; and the most unjust and frightful persecution
immediately commenced. But still some of these governors and
magistrates, considering themselves not only the officers of the prince,
but the protectors of the people, and the defenders of the laws rather
than of the faith, did not blindly conform to those harsh and illegal
commands. The prince of Orange, stadtholder of Holland, Zealand, and
Utrecht, and count of Egmont, governor of Flanders and Artois, permitted
no persecutions in those five provinces. But in various places the very
people, even when influenced by their superiors, openly opposed it.
Catholics as well as Protestants were indignant at the atrocious
spectacles of cruelty presented on all sides. The public peace was
endangered by isolated acts of resistance, and fears of a general
insurrection soon became universal.

“The public fermentation subsided; the patriot lords re-appeared at
court; and the prince of Orange acquired an increasing influence in the
council and over the government, who by his advice adopted a
conciliatory line of conduct—a fallacious but still a temporary hope for
the nation. But the calm was of short duration. Scarcely was this
moderation evinced by the government, when Philip, obstinate in his
designs, and outrageous in his resentment, sent an order to have the
edicts against heresy put into most rigorous execution, and to proclaim
throughout the seventeen provinces the furious decree of the council of
Trent.

“Not satisfied with the hitherto established forms of punishment, Philip
now expressly commanded that the more revolting means decreed by his
father in the rigour of his early zeal, such as burning, living burial,
and the like, should be adopted; and he somewhat more obscurely directed
that the victims should be no longer publicly immolated, but secretly
destroyed. He endeavoured, by this vague phraseology, to avoid the
actual utterance of the word _inquisition_; but he thus virtually
established that atrocious tribunal, with attributes still more terrific
than even in Spain; for there the condemned had at least the consolation
of dying in open day, and of displaying the fortitude which is rarely
proof against the horror of a private execution. Philip had thus
consummated his treason against the principles of justice and the
practices of jurisprudence, which had heretofore characterized the
country; and against the most vital of those privileges which he had
solemnly sworn to maintain.

“His design of establishing this horrible tribunal so impiously named
_holy_ by its founders, had been long suspected by the people of the
Netherlands. The expression of those fears had reached him more than
once. He as often replied by assurances that he had formed no such
project, and particularly to count d’Egmont during his recent visit to
Madrid. But at the very time he assembled a conclave of his creatures,
doctors of theology, of whom he formally demanded an opinion as to
whether he could conscientiously tolerate two sorts of religion in the
Netherlands. The doctors, hoping to please him, replied, that ‘he might,
for the avoidance of a greater evil.’ Philip trembled with rage, and
exclaimed, with a threatening tone, ‘I ask not if I _can_, but if I
_ought_.’ The theologians read in this question the nature of the
expected reply; and it was amply conformable to his wish. He immediately
threw himself on his knees before a crucifix, and raising his hands
towards heaven, put up a prayer for strength in his resolution to pursue
as deadly enemies all who viewed that effigy with feelings different
from his own. If this were not really a sacrilegious farce, it must be
that the blaspheming bigot believed the Deity to be a monster of cruelty
like himself.

“And now in reality began the awful revolution of the Netherlands
against their tyrant. In a few years this so lately flourishing and
happy nation presented a frightful picture; and in the midst of European
peace, prosperity, and civilization, the wickedness of one prince drew
down on the country he misgoverned more evils than it had suffered for
centuries from the worst effects of his foreign foes.

“The confederation acquired its perfect organization in the month of
February, 1566, on the 10th of which month its celebrated manifesto was
signed by its numerous adherents.

“This remarkable proclamation of general feeling consisted chiefly in a
powerful reprehension of the illegal establishment of the inquisition in
the Low Countries, and a solemn obligation on the members of the
confederacy to unite in the common cause against this detested nuisance.
Men of all ranks and classes offered their signatures, and several
Catholic priests among the rest.

“Even while the council of state held its sittings, the report was
spread through Brussels, that the confederates were approaching. And at
length they did enter the city, to the amount of some hundreds of the
representatives of the first families in the country. On the following
day, the 5th of April, 1556, they walked in solemn procession to the
palace. Their demeanour was highly imposing, from their mingled air of
forbearance and determination. All Brussels thronged out, to gaze and
sympathise with this extraordinary spectacle of men whose resolute step
showed they were no common suppliants, but whose modest bearing had none
of the seditious air of faction. The government received the
distinguished petitioners with courtesy, listened to their detail of
grievances, and returned a moderate, conciliatory, but evasive answer.

“Having presented two subsequent remonstrances to the government, and
obtained some consoling promises of moderation, the chief confederates
quitted Brussels, leaving several directors to sustain their cause in
the capital; while they themselves spread into the various provinces,
exciting the people to join the legal and constitutional resistance with
which they were resolved to oppose the march of bigotry and despotism.

“The confederation gained ground every day. Its measures had totally
changed the face of affairs in all parts of the nation. The general
discontent now acquired stability, and subsequent importance. The chief
merchants of many of the towns enrolled themselves in the patriot band.”

The result of these first measures was a deputation from Marguerite to
Philip, praying for redress of the grievances named by the
confederation; and even Philip’s Spanish Councillors advised gentleness
and the abolition of the Inquisition.

“The king’s first care on receiving this advice was to order, in all the
principal towns of Spain and the Netherlands, prayer and processions, to
implore the divine approbation on the resolutions which he had formed.
He appeared then in person at the council of state, and issued a decree,
by which he refused his consent to the convocation of the
states-general, and bound himself to take several German regiments into
his pay. He ordered the duchess of Parma, by a private letter, to
immediately cause to be raised 3000 cavalry and 10,000 foot, and he
remitted to her for this purpose 300,000 florins gold. He next wrote
with his own hand to several of his partisans in the various towns,
encouraging them in their fidelity to his purposes, and promising them
his support. He rejected the adoption of the moderation recommended to
him; but he consented to the abolition of the inquisition in its most
odious sense, reëstablishing that modified species of ecclesiastical
tyranny which had been introduced into the Netherlands by Charles V. The
people of that devoted country were thus successful in obtaining one
important concession from the king, and in meeting unexpected
consideration from this Spanish council. Whether these measures had been
calculated with a view to their failure, it is not now easy to
determine; at all events they came too late. When Philip’s letters
reached Brussels, the iconoclasts or image-breakers were abroad.

“It requires no profound research to comprehend the impulse which leads
a horde of fanatics to the most monstrous excesses. That the deeds of
the iconoclasts arose from the spontaneous outburst of mere vulgar fury,
admits of no doubt. The aspersion which would trace those deeds to the
meeting of St. Trond, and fix the infamy on the body of nobility there
assembled, is scarcely worthy of refutation. The very lowest of the
people were the actors as well as the authors of the outrages, which
were at once shocking to every friend of liberty, and injurious to that
sacred cause. Artois and western Flanders were the scenes of the first
exploits of the iconoclasts. A band of peasants, intermixed with beggars
and various other vagabonds, to the amount of about 300, urged by
fanaticism and those baser passions which animate every lawless body of
men, armed with hatchets, clubs, and hammers, forced open the doors of
some of the village churches in the neighbourhood of St. Omer, and tore
down and destroyed not only the images and relics of saints, but those
very ornaments which Christians of all sects hold sacred, and essential
to the most simple rites of religion.

“The cities of Ypres, Lille, and other places of importance, were soon
subject to similar visitations; and the whole of Flanders was in a few
days ravaged by furious multitudes, whose frantic energy spread terror
and destruction on their route. Antwerp was protected for a while by the
presence of the prince of Orange; but an order from the government
having obliged him to repair to Brussels, a few nights after his
departure the celebrated cathedral shared the fate of many a minor
temple, and was utterly pillaged. The blind fury of the spoilers was not
confined to the mere effigies which they considered the types of
idolatry, nor even to the pictures, the vases, the sixty-six altars, and
their richly wrought accessories; but it was equally fatal to the
splendid organ, which was considered the finest at that time in
existence. The rapidity and the order with which this torchlight scene
was acted, without a single accident among the numerous doers, has
excited the wonder of almost all its early historians. One of them does
not hesitate to ascribe the ‘miracle’ to the absolute agency of demons.
For three days and nights these revolting scenes were acted, and every
church in the city shared the fate of the cathedral, which, next to St.
Peter’s at Rome, was the most magnificent in Christendom.

“Ghent, Tournay, Valenciennes, Mechlin, and other cities, were next the
theatres of similar excesses; and in an incredibly short space of time
above 400 churches were pillaged in Flanders and Brabant. Zealand,
Utrecht, and others of the northern provinces, suffered more or less;
Friesland, Guelders, and Holland alone escaped, and even the latter but
in partial instances.

“These terrible scenes extinguished every hope of reconciliation with
the king. An inveterate and interminable hatred was now established
between him and the people; for the whole nation was identified with
deeds which were in reality only shared by the most base, and were
loathsome to all who were enlightened. It was in vain that the patriot
nobles might hope or strive to exculpate themselves; they were sure to
be held criminal either in fact or by implication. No show of loyalty,
no efforts to restore order, no personal sacrifice, could save them from
the hatred or screen them from the vengeance of Philip.

“The affright of the government during the short reign of anarchy and
terror was without bounds.

“Necessity now extorted almost every concession which had been so long
denied to justice and prudence. The confederates were declared absolved
from all responsibility relative to their proceedings. The suppression
of the inquisition, the abolition of the edicts against heresy, and a
permission for the preachings, were simultaneously published.

“Philip was ill at Segovia when he received accounts of the excesses of
the image-breakers, and of the convention concluded with the heretics.
Dispatches from the government, with private advices from Viglius,
Egmont, Mansfield, Megham, de Berlaimont, and others, gave him ample
information as to the real state of things, and they thus strove to
palliate their having acceded to the convention. The emperor even wrote
to his royal nephew, imploring him to treat his wayward subjects with
moderation, and offered his mediation between them.”

But all was in vain. Philip proceeded with his usual dissimulation. His
artifices succeeded in disuniting the Protestants, but hostilities
commenced, and there were victories and losses on both sides; new
preliminaries of reconciliation, falsely intended, and resulting only in
the self-banishment of the patriot lords and an immense emigration;
until at last Philip fully developed his plans by sending Alva to
supersede Marguerite.

“On the 5th May, 1567, this celebrated captain, whose reputation was so
quickly destined to sink into the notoriety of an executioner, began his
memorable march; and on the 22d of August, he, with his two natural
sons, and his veteran army consisting of about 15,000 men, arrived at
the walls of Brussels. The discipline observed on this march was a
terrible fore-warning to the people of the Netherlands of the influence
of the general and the obedience of the troops. They had little chance
of resistance against such soldiers so commanded.

“Several of the Belgian nobility went forward to meet Alva, to render
him the accustomed honours, and endeavour thus early to gain his good
graces. Among them was the infatuated Egmont, who made a present to Alva
of two superb horses, which the latter received with a disdainful air of
condescension. Alva’s first care was the distribution of his
troops—several thousands of whom were placed in Antwerp, Ghent, and
other important towns, and the remainder reserved under his own
immediate orders at Brussels. His approach was celebrated by universal
terror; and his arrival was thoroughly humiliating to the duchess of
Parma. He immediately produced his commission as commander-in-chief of
the royal armies in the Netherlands; but he next showed her another,
which confided to him powers infinitely more extended than any
Marguerite herself had enjoyed, and which proved to her that the almost
sovereign power over the country was virtually vested in him.

“Alva first turned his attention to the seizure of those patriot lords
whose pertinacious infatuation left them within his reach. He summoned a
meeting of all the members of the council of state and the knights of
the order of the Golden Fleece, to deliberate on matters of great
importance. Counts Egmont and Horn attended, among many others; and at
the conclusion of the council they were both arrested (some historians
assert by the hands of Alva and his eldest son), as was also Van
Straeten, burgomaster of Antwerp, and Casambrot, Egmont’s secretary. The
young count of Mansfield appeared for a moment at this meeting; but,
warned by his father of the fate intended him, as an original member of
the confederation, he had time to fly. The count of Hoogstraeten was
happily detained by illness, and thus escaped the fate of his friends.
Egmont and Horn were transferred to the citadel of Ghent, under an
escort of 3000 Spanish soldiers. Several other persons of the first
families were arrested; and those who had originally been taken in arms
were executed without delay.

“The next measures of the new governor were the reëstablishment of the
inquisition, the promulgation of the decrees of the council of Trent,
the revocation of the duchess of Parma’s edicts, and the royal refusal
to recognize the terms of her treaties with the Protestants. He
immediately established a special tribunal, composed of twelve members,
with full powers to inquire into and pronounce judgment on every
circumstance connected with the late troubles. He named himself
president of this council, and appointed a Spaniard, named Vargas, as
vice-president—a wretch of the most diabolical cruelty. Several others
of the judges were also Spaniards, in direct infraction of the
fundamental laws of the country. This council, immortalized by its
infamy, was named by the new governor (for so Alva was in fact, though
not yet in name), the Council of Troubles. By the people it was soon
designated the Council of Blood. In its atrocious proceedings no respect
was paid to titles, contracts, or privileges, however sacred. Its
judgments were without appeal. Every subject of the state was amenable
to its summons; clergy and laity, the first individuals of the country,
as well as the most wretched outcasts of society. Its decrees were
passed with disgusting rapidity and contempt of form. Contumacy was
punished with exile and confiscation. Those who, strong in innocence,
dared to brave a trial, were lost without resource. The accused were
forced to its bar without previous warning. Many a wealthy citizen was
dragged to trial four leagues’ distance, tied to a horse’s tail. The
number of victims was appalling. On one occasion, the town of
Valenciennes alone saw fifty-five of its citizens fall by the hands of
the executioner. Hanging, beheading, quartering, and burning, were the
every-day spectacles. The enormous confiscations only added to the
thirst for gold and blood by which Alva and his satellites were parched.
History offers no example of parallel horrors: for while party vengeance
on other occasions had led to scenes of fury and terror, they arose, in
this instance, from the vilest cupidity and the most cold-blooded
cruelty.

“After _three months_ of such atrocity, Alva, fatigued rather than
satiated with butchery, resigned his hateful functions wholly into the
hands of Vargas, who was chiefly aided by the members Delrio and Dela
Torre. Even at this remote period we cannot repress the indignation
excited by the mention of those monsters, and it is impossible not to
feel satisfaction in fixing upon their names the brand of historic
execration. One of these wretches, called Hesselts, used at length to
sleep during the mock trials of the already doomed victims; and as often
as he was roused up by his colleagues, he used to cry out mechanically,
“To the gibbet! to the gibbet!” so familiar was his tongue with the
sounds of condemnation.

“The despair of the people may be imagined from the fact, that until the
end of the year 1567 their only consolation was the prospect of the
king’s arrival! He never dreamt of coming. Even the delight of feasting
in horrors like these could not conquer his indolence. The good duchess
of Parma,—for so she was in comparison with her successor,—was not long
left to oppose the feeble barrier of her prayers between Alva and his
victims. She demanded her dismissal from the nominal dignity, which was
now but a title of disgrace. Philip granted it readily, accompanied by a
hypocritical letter, a present of 30,000 crowns, and the promise of an
annual pension of 20,000 more. She left Brussels in the month of April,
1568, raised to a high place in the esteem and gratitude of the people,
less by any actual claims from her own conduct, than by its fortuitous
contrast with the infamy of her successor. She retired to Italy, and
died at Naples in the month of February, 1586.

“In addition to the horrors acted by the Council of Blood, Alva
committed many deeds of collateral but minor tyranny: among others, he
issued a decree forbidding, under severe penalties, any inhabitant of
the country to marry without his express permission. His furious edicts
against emigration were attempted to be enforced in vain. Elizabeth of
England opened all the ports of her kingdom to the Flemish refugees, who
carried with them those abundant stores of manufacturing knowledge which
she wisely knew to be the elements of national wealth.

“Alva soon summoned the prince of Orange, his brothers, and all the
confederate lords, to appear before the council and answer to the charge
of high treason. The prince gave a prompt and contemptuous answer,
denying the authority of Alva and his council, and acknowledging for his
judges only the emperor, whose vassal he was, or the king of Spain in
person, as president of the order of the Golden Fleece. The other lords
made replies nearly similar. The trials of each were, therefore,
proceeded on, by contumacy; confiscation of property being an object
almost as dear to the tyrant viceroy as the death of his victims.
Judgments were promptly pronounced against those present or absent,
alive or dead. Witness the case of the unfortunate marquess of Bergues,
who had previously expired at Madrid, as was universally believed, by
poison; and his equally ill-fated colleague in the embassy, the baron
Montigny, was for a while imprisoned at Segovia, where he was soon after
secretly beheaded, on the base pretext of former disaffection.

“The departure of the duchess of Parma having left Alva undisputed as
well as unlimited authority, he proceeded rapidly in his terrible
career. The count of Beuren was seized at Louvain, and sent prisoner to
Madrid; and wherever it was possible to lay hands on a suspected
patriot, the occasion was not neglected. It would be a revolting task to
enter into a minute detail of all the horrors committed, and impossible
to record the names of the victims who so quickly fell before Alva’s
insatiate cruelty. The people were driven to frenzy. Bands of wretches
fled to the woods and marshes; whence, half famished and perishing for
want, they revenged themselves with pillage and murder. Pirates infested
and ravaged the coast; and thus, from both sea and land, the whole
extent of the Netherlands was devoted to carnage and ruin. The
chronicles of Brabant and Holland, chiefly written in Flemish by
contemporary authors, abound in thrilling details of the horrors of this
general desolation, with long lists of those who perished. Suffice it to
say, that on the recorded boast of Alva himself, he caused 18,000
inhabitants of the Low Countries to perish by the hands of the
executioner, during his less than six years’ sovereignty in the
Netherlands.

“The most important of these tragical scenes was now soon to be acted.
The counts Egmont and Horn, having submitted to some previous
interrogatories by Vargas and others, were removed from Ghent to
Brussels, on the 3d of June, under a strong escort. The following day
they passed through the mockery of a trial before the Council of Blood;
and on the 5th, they were both beheaded in the great square of Brussels,
in the presence of Alva, who gloated on the spectacle from a balcony
that commanded the execution. The same day Vanstraelen and Casambrot
shared the fate of their illustrious friends, in the castle of Vilvorde,
with many others, whose names only find a place in the local chronicles
of the times.”

All Europe at last burst out into execration and remonstrance, and an
army was raised in Germany, which William of Orange headed, but which,
after some victories, was dispersed by Alva. A frightful inundation
aided him; for “no suffering could affect his inflexible sternness; and
to such excess did he carry his persecution, that Philip himself began
to be discontented, and reproached him sharply in some of his
despatches. The governor replied in the same strain, and such was the
effect of this correspondence, that Philip resolved to remove him.”

We will not follow the history through the short term of Requesens’s
rule, or even through that of Don John of Austria, and of the Prince of
Parma, though the latter would be well suited to our purpose. The
happiest result of Philip’s obstinacy was the Declaration of National
Independence by the States-General, assembled at Antwerp, who, after one
or two trials of other princes, at length conferred the Sovereignty on
the Prince of Orange.

In the end, the independence of Holland was maintained; but Philip
conferred on Albert of Austria, and Isabella, the sovereignty of the
reconciled southern provinces. Grattan gives a picture of the country at
this time, which contrasts mournfully with the one given of it thirty
years before.

“The reconciled provinces presented the most deplorable spectacle. The
chief towns were almost depopulated. The inhabitants had in a great
measure fallen victims to war, pestilence, and famine. Little inducement
existed to replace by marriage the ravages caused by death, for few men
wished to propagate a race which divine wrath seemed to have marked for
persecution. The thousands of villages which had covered the face of the
country were absolutely abandoned to the wolves, which had so rapidly
increased, that they attacked not merely cattle and children, but
grown-up persons. The dogs, driven abroad by hunger, had become as
ferocious as other beasts of prey, and joined in large packs to hunt
down brutes and men. Neither fields, nor woods, nor roads, were now to
be distinguished by any visible limits. All was an entangled mass of
trees, weeds, and grass. The prices of the necessaries of life were so
high, that people of rank, after selling every thing to buy bread, were
obliged to have recourse to open beggary in the streets of the great
towns.

“From this frightful picture, and the numerous details which imagination
may readily supply, we gladly turn to the contrast afforded by the
northern states. Those we have just described have a feeble hold upon
our sympathies; we cannot pronounce their sufferings to be unmerited.
The want of firmness or enlightenment, which preferred such an existence
to the risk of entire destruction, only heightens the glory of the
people whose unyielding energy and courage gained them so proud a place
among the independent nations of Europe.”

The assassination of the noble William of Orange, at the instigation of
Philip, forms a fitting crime with which to close this section of the
subject.

But before leaving the subject of the Netherlands, we must speak of one
more passage of its history, viz: that which is connected with the name
of Joseph II.

In the mean time, if it did, by its own internal energies, recover
somewhat from the condition in which Philip II. left it, it had suffered
through its connection with Austria, all the horrors of being the
battle-ground of the rival houses of Bourbon and Hapsburgh, especially
during the disastrous ten years of the War of Succession, in Spain.

With Joseph II., a new species of oppression commenced. This emperor’s
character has been made the subject of a great deal of disquisition. He
is the first, the only monarch of his race who ever seems to have
entertained in his brain, the idea of a duty owing from a monarch to the
nations under his sway; if indeed it were not after all rather a notion
of the free grace of benevolence, that impelled him to make a plan of
benefiting the people, under him by a new organization of the large part
of Europe which the centralising selfishness and rapacity of his
ancestors had connected into a heterogenoeous whole. But it is a very
different thing to have an idea of reform, whether it calls itself duty
or beneficence, and to have the character of a reformer. Out of the
heart are the issues of life. Even Coxe (the apologist of the House of
Austria, although he admits _the facts_ which make against that aim of
his work and which have been so largely quoted in this volume) says, in
the very chapter in which he speaks of the specific reforms of Joseph,
and among many others of his abolition of useless tribunals and feudal
offices, which were dilatory and oppressive, “_he yet introduced a still
greater evil, by making the basis of the administration_, THE ABSOLUTE
WILL _of the sovereign, from which there could be_ NO APPEAL.”

Here Coxe strikes upon the Hapsburghs, the character _in the blood_, (or
is it in the spiritual tradition of families?) Without supposing Joseph
consciously insincere in his idea of reform, beneficence, or duty; yet
here we see that he was incapable of the principle, no less from
personal character than from the falseness of his position. He said that
his “greatest honour would be to reign over freemen,”[6] but the point
he could not give up was precisely that of “reigning,” and to _reign_
over _freemen_ is _reductio ad absurdum_. Joseph never used the word
_reign_ in a limited sense. It is only possible, in this work, to give
one illustration of Joseph’s character as a reformer and promoter of the
welfare of his subjects. We shall give it in the words of Coxe himself,
that no one may say it is the one-sided view of a _republican_, who is
acting the part of an advocate rather than of an historian. We give the
whole of Coxe’s hundred and twenty-ninth chapter.

“That rich and fertile territory, usually known by the synonymous
appellations of the Netherlands and the Low Countries, formed part of
the vast dominions which had been attached to the Spanish monarchy.
Conquered by the joint forces of the Maritime Powers, it was
transferred, at the peace of Utrecht, under their guaranty, to the house
of Austria, on condition that the ancient laws, customs, and
constitutions should be inviolably preserved. The late emperor, Charles
VI., was inaugurated on these terms. His daughter, Maria Theresa,
entered into similar engagements on her accession; but during her reign
some changes, with the consent, if not at the request, of the states,
were introduced in the mode of representation in Brabant, and in the
system of taxation. _Joseph gave the same solemn sanction to the
existing constitution._

“Perhaps there was no country on the surface of the globe so small in
extent, under the government of one prince, of which the component parts
differed so widely in manners, government, and laws. Each of the
provinces not only formed a separate sovereignty, enjoying a peculiar
constitution, but the same variation extended to the cities and
districts. In most of the provinces the rights and privileges were
founded on tradition or prescription; but in Brabant and Limburgh they
were detailed in a charter called La Joyeuse Entrée, which contained
fifty-nine articles, a collection of ancient usages and immunities
granted by the former dukes of Brabant. The sovereign was restrained
from conferring charges on any except natives, no inhabitant was to be
tried out of the country, and full liberty of speech was to be allowed
in the assembly of the states, with many other privileges; the charter
was also concluded with a declaration similar to the celebrated clause
in the coronation oath of Andrew II., king of Hungary, that if the
sovereign should cease to observe the articles, his subjects should also
cease to obey him, until the breaches in the constitution were repaired,
and the immunities restored.

“The power of the clergy was almost unbounded; the hierarchy consisted
of one archbishop and seven bishops; there were also a hundred and eight
abbeys, each endowed with annual revenues from 60,000 to 300,000
florins, numerous convents, and the number of religious persons, regular
and secular, of both sexes, amounted to 30,000. The clergy possessed a
considerable part of the landed property, and being the first order of
the states, were enabled to relieve themselves from a considerable part
of the public burdens, by fixing the land-tax at a low rate, and
throwing the imposts on articles of consumption.

“Their predominant influence was extended by the system of public
education, which was subjected to the immediate control of the
hierarchy. The university of Louvain had long been celebrated for its
numerous and richly-endowed colleges, and was formerly distinguished for
learning and discipline. It possessed extraordinary privileges, with the
patronage of numerous benefices, both in the Netherlands and in the
bishopric of Liege; and above all, its academical honours were
indispensable qualifications for the possession of every civil and
ecclesiastical office. The members devoted to the papal see, maintained
a blind adherence to the system of the ancient schoolmen, and proscribed
all innovations adopted in other seminaries.

“In this country, and among a people so tenacious of their customs,
liberties, and religion, Joseph did not merely attempt to reform abuses
and lop superfluous branches, _but even laid the axe to the root of the
constitution itself_. He purposed to force on the natives what he termed
a simple and efficient form of government, and to establish yearly the
same system of ecclesiastical polity, finance, and jurisprudence, as he
had introduced into his hereditary countries. He commenced his
innovations at an early period of his reign by abolishing several
convents, prohibiting processions, jubilees, and confraternities, and
removing statues, images, and offerings from the churches.

“But in 1786 his plans were fully developed. He reformed the system of
public education, by abrogating the privileges of the university of
Louvain, and instituting a new seminary for the study of theology, over
which he placed foreigners as directors, independent of the control of
the bishops, and at which he ordered all youths destined for the church
to pursue their studies. The innovation was vehemently opposed, and in
December, 1786, gave rise to a tumult among the students, which was not
suppressed without a military force. The archbishop of Mechlin, who took
an active part, was summoned to Vienna, and the papal nuncio, who had
countenanced the opposition to the imperial decrees, was abruptly
ordered to quit the Netherlands. This attempt was followed by similar
changes in the civil government.

“The abolition of their venerated constitution excited universal
indignation and alarm among the people of the Netherlands. The clergy
and laity formed a common cause for mutual security. Brabant became the
focus of opposition; the states, in the terms of their constitution,
refused to grant the customary subsidies, until their grievances were
redressed; they forbade the collectors of the revenue to acknowledge the
authority of the new intendants, and presented a spirited remonstrance
to the governors-general. They suppressed also the new seminary at
Louvain, dismissed the foreign professors, invited the other states to
form a general confederacy, and claimed the guaranty of foreign powers,
particularly of France. Their example was followed by the other
provinces. Tumults burst forth in different places, the populace assumed
the national cockade in imitation of the French, and the aspect of the
whole country portended an insurrection.

“On the 28th of May, 1787, Joseph received the first account of the
tumults at Pereslaf, as he was preparing to cross the Dnieper. But
infatuated with his plans, despising the danger, and employed in paying
court to Catherine, he slighted the intelligence, and gave orders that
no letters should be forwarded to him during the journey. He determined,
however, to pursue rigorous measures, and in answer to strong
representations in favour of lenity and caution, replied, “the flame of
rebellion can only be extinguished by blood.” On his return to Pereslaf,
he learnt with astonishment and agitation the progress of the
insurrection; and after taking a hasty leave of Catherine, returned to
Vienna in the beginning of July. New mortifications awaited his arrival.
He was thunderstruck with the intelligence that the Flemings, instead of
awaiting the repeal of the obnoxious edicts, had risen in arms, and
obtained concessions from the governors-general; and that prince Kaunitz
had not only approved these lenient measures, but pledged himself for
the acquiescence of his sovereign.

“Joseph highly reprobated the conduct of the governors-general, and of
his minister, as feeble and pusillanimous, and expressed his inflexible
resolution to enforce the execution of his plans. He ordered troops to
march to the Netherlands; summoned the governors-general and count
Belgiojoso to Vienna; and at the same time despatched an angry mandate
to the contumacious states, commanding them, as a mark of obedience, to
submit their complaints, and apologise for their misconduct at the foot
of the throne.

“The states did not refuse to give the required proof of obedience, but
charged their deputies to express the loyalty of the nation and
represent its grievances. On the 15th of August they were admitted to an
audience, and their chief addressed the emperor in a speech replete with
professions of loyalty, accompanied with firmness and spirit; and, at
the conclusion, they were permitted to read the list of their
grievances.

“The emperor, who had scarcely restrained his indignation during the
recital, replied sternly: ‘The great dissatisfaction which I feel from
all the late proceedings in my Belgic provinces cannot be effaced by a
vain parade of words: nothing but a series of actions can prove the
sincerity of your professions. I have charged prince Kaunitz to
communicate to you in writing, for the information of the states,
certain articles, the execution of which must precede any deliberation.
Your instant and entire obedience is not only necessary to restore all
things to their proper order, but to put a stop to the present
interruption of commerce. I give you daily proofs that the good of my
subjects is the sole object of all my actions, and you must be convinced
that I have no thought of overturning your constitution, as in the
moment of your greatest outrages, and when you have deserved my utmost
indignation, with all the power which I possess, I only reiterate to you
my assurances that I will preserve your liberties.’

“The conditions announced with this parade of liberality, comprised the
restoration of all innovations, the payment of the subsidies, and the
revocation of all orders issued by the states contrary to the views of
the sovereign. In case of an immediate compliance, the emperor promised
that the ancient tribunals and administration of justice should be
restored, that the intendancies should not be established, nor the
abbeys deprived of their privileges. He promised also that the
territorial impost of forty per cent., and the military conscription
should not be introduced into the Netherlands.

“Promises so vague, accompanied by demands so contradictory, did not
satisfy the Belgic states, and they announced their resolution not to
comply with the preliminary articles without full security for the
redress of their grievances. But while the people were expecting the
march of the imperial troops, and were making preparations for
resistance, a sudden change took place in the conduct of Joseph. As he
could not venture to drive his subjects of the Netherlands to
desperation while embarrassed with the Turkish war, he endeavoured to
attain by artifice what he could not effect by force. He therefore
treated the deputies with the greatest condescension, and affected a
willingness to accede to most of their demands. These concessions
produced the desired effect, and the objects in dispute were amicably
arranged. The states announced their compliance with the wishes of their
sovereign, the volunteers laid down their arms, and, in return, the
march of the imperial troops was countermanded. Count Murray issued the
edict which suppressed the new ordinances, and promised that conferences
should be held with the states, to adjust the subjects remaining in
dispute.

“These measures occasioned a temporary restoration of tranquillity. But
it was soon evident that Joseph only suspended his projects to deceive
his subjects. He dismissed Count Murray, who had tranquillised the minds
of the people. The army in the Netherlands was silently augmented, and
the command intrusted to general d’Alton, a man of undaunted and
inflexible temper, united to the spirit of a rigid disciplinarian. Count
Trautmansdorf was appointed minister plenipotentiary ad interim, with
instructions which proved the views and insincerity of the emperor. He
was ordered to consider the declaration of count Murray as extorted by
fear, and consequently invalid; to hold no conference with the states on
the subjects in dispute; to remove gradually all disaffected persons
from their employments; but above all, to effect a complete reform in
the supreme council of Brabant, ‘without which,’ to use the words of the
emperor, ‘nothing could be done.’ He was no less positively enjoined to
commence his administration with the re-establishment of the general
seminary at Louvain.

“On the arrival of Trautmansdorf at Brussels, in October, 1787, he found
the people in a state of general agitation, and with suspicions
naturally inspired by the prevarications of the sovereign, watching all
his proceedings with a jealous eye. He therefore suspended the execution
of the decree for the suppression of the university during three months,
and gained great popularity by this act of indulgence. The other demands
were obtained without difficulty, and the subsidies which had been
refused unanimously voted, with a declaration that this compliance was a
testimony of gratitude for the appointment of a minister so agreeable to
the nation.

“Joseph, too ardent and arbitrary to listen to the dictates of prudence
or justice, disapproved the suspension, and issued peremptory orders to
establish the general seminary, whatever might be the consequence. His
views were warmly supported by general d’Alton, who was eager to bring
the military force into action, and boasted that he could subjugate the
whole Netherlands in six weeks. Trautmansdorf, reluctantly fulfilling an
order of which he deplored the fatal consequences, commanded the rector
and other members of the university to submit to the plan of reform. The
whole body appealing to the council of Brabant, he required the latter
to enforce the imperial decree, allowed only two hours for deliberation,
and threatened, in case of refusal, to employ force, and revoke the
recent concessions. At the same time d’Alton drew out a body of troops,
with artillery, near the house in which the council was assembled, and
sent a detachment through the streets to awe the populace. The states,
however, still undaunted, disdained to return an answer, and only
ordered the message to be entered on their journals. The detachment
which patrolled the streets being insulted, fired on the populace; a
tumult ensued, in which six persons were killed and several wounded, and
d’Alton poured a body of troops into the Town-house. But at this awful
crisis Trautmansdorf again suspended the rising commotion by ceasing to
press his demands, and by declaring that the general had drawn out the
troops without his concurrence.

“Intelligence of these proceedings being transmitted to Vienna, the
emperor rewarded the officer who had ordered the troops to fire, and
encouraged d’Alton to persist in coercive measures; yet, with the same
duplicity as before, he held forth to the natives the offer of a general
amnesty and complete restitution of his favour. The governor-general,
who returned at this juncture, found the country in a state of apparent
tranquillity, and the people impressed with hopes that Joseph had at
length relinquished his impolitic designs. But within a few days after
this public declaration, the university was again closed, the rector
banished for three years, and the refractory members expelled; while a
body of troops, stationed in Louvain, slaughtered many of the
inhabitants, who assembled to deplore the overthrow of that university
which had been their pride and support. The general seminary was
reëstablished; the colleges of Mechlin and Antwerp, celebrated for the
education of youth destined to the ecclesiastical profession, were
likewise closed, and the same measures of coercion employed against the
inhabitants.

“Soon after these violent proceedings, the states of the different
provinces assembled to grant the ordinary subsidies, and notwithstanding
the causes of dissatisfaction, all complied with the usual custom except
those of Hainault and Brabant. Their refusal drew from the emperor a
severe address, in which he threatened to revoke the amnesty, to
prosecute all who had taken part in the late troubles, to annul their
privileges, and to abrogate the Joyous Entry. The states of Brabant,
alarmed by these threats, sent on the 26th of January, 1789, a petition
to deprecate the anger of the sovereign, and procured the suspension of
the impending punishment. Those of the Hainault, persisting in their
resolution, their assembly was dissolved on the 31st by the military
force, their chiefs arrested, and their constitution abolished.
Confident that this severe example would intimidate the refractory
states of Brabant, Joseph announced his intention to make a change in
their government, which should prevent a repetition of their contumacy,
and secure the regular grant of a permanent subsidy, by extending the
right of representation to other towns and districts.

“In the present temper of the country such an arbitrary project excited
general indignation; and the whole province became a scene of civil
commotion.

“While Brabant was thus divided by internal feuds, Joseph seized the
opportunity to overthrow the constitution. By his command, Trautmansdorf
summoned an extraordinary meeting of the states, and required their
concurrence in the proposition for increasing the third order, and
establishing a permanent subsidy. The deputies, however, boldly refused
their consent, exclaiming with one accord, ‘though the emperor may
dissolve us, we will not violate a constitution which we have solemnly
pledged ourselves to preserve.’ In consequence of this refusal, the
edict was enforced, the assembly dissolved, and the Joyous Entry
annulled. The deputies repaired to the hall of the council of Brabant,
and protested against these proceedings; but their protests were
disregarded, and on the ensuing morning three imperial edicts proclaimed
the dissolution of the ancient constitution, the new arrangement for the
administration of justice, and various alterations in the imposition and
collection of the taxes.

“Joseph fondly considered this event as the termination of the struggle;
and d’Alton reëchoed his sentiments when he said, ‘the 18th of June is a
happy epoch for the house of Austria; for on that day, the victory of
Kolin saved the monarchy, and the emperor became master of the
Netherlands.’ But neither the infatuated monarch nor his sanguine
general were acquainted with the resolution and sentiments of a free
nation. Although the presence of the military prevented an immediate
tumult, this apparent tranquillity was the calm which precedes the
storm. The licentious spirit, which at this time agitated France, spread
like an electric shock among a people who were provoked by repeated
insults and oppressions; the patriots daily augmenting in numbers
exulted in the hope of being assisted by their neighbours, and of
forming a similar constitution on the ruins of the Austrian government.
Vengeance and retaliation were denounced against the royalists; the
walls, churches, and houses were covered with placards, calling on the
people to imitate the example set by the citizens of Paris.

“Trautmansdorf, who had before averted the danger by prudence and
lenity, was now anxious to meet it with firmness. Conscious that the
imperial troops, who scarcely amounted to 20,000, were too few to awe a
whole nation, he earnestly requested an accession of force. His
apprehensions were ridiculed by d’Alton, who boasted that after sending
a battalion of each regiment to the army in Hungary, he should still be
able to maintain internal tranquillity; and Joseph reluctantly
despatched only a single regiment, ‘not because he deemed it necessary,
but to encourage a timid government.’ The forebodings of the minister
were too soon realised. Scarcely a month elapsed after the dissolution
of the ancient constitution, before the people tumultuously rose, in
various districts released the arrested persons, attacked the military,
and plundered the houses of the magistrates. In these commotions many
lives were lost at Tirlemont, Louvain, Antwerp, and Mons, before
tranquillity could be restored, and at Diest, the patriots led on by the
monks, expelled the imperial troops and the magistrates. Brussels being
likewise the scene of a momentary effervescence, the minister proposed
to disarm the citizens; but this measure was rejected by d’Alton, who,
presuming on the force of military discipline, contemptuously exclaimed,
‘If they want arms, I will supply them.’

“At this period many young men of Brussels, who had uttered seditious
speeches, were sent without trial to serve in the army of Hungary; and
in the agitated state of the public mind, this arbitrary act spread
through the nation indignant and sullen despondency. Emigrations took
place from all quarters; the fugitives repairing to the frontiers of
Holland and Liege, joined those who had quitted their country in the
preceding troubles, and formed a numerous body, ready to act offensively
against the government. They found an able chief in Van-der-Noot, a
factious advocate of Brussels, who had taken an active part during the
troubles, and at whose instigation the third estate had refused to grant
the annual subsidy. Being arrested and condemned for treason, he had in
1787 escaped into England. After ineffectually endeavouring to obtain
for his countrymen the protection and assistance of the British cabinet,
he repaired to Berlin. Receiving from the king of Prussia only dubious
promises, he went to Holland, where he was permitted to reside under a
feigned name, by the connivance of the Dutch government, which on this
occasion imitated the conduct of Joseph towards the exiles in the late
revolution. He returned in 1789 to Breda, whither he drew the archbishop
of Mechlin, the abbot of Tongaloo, Crumpiper, the chancellor of Brabant,
many of the nobility of Brussels, almost all the members from the
states, and Van Eupen, canon of Antwerp. By their efforts, the emigrants
were disciplined, distributed in different parts of the neighbouring
country, arms and ammunition secured, and a force amounting to 10,000
men organised and appointed. A committee was established at Breda for
the regulation of their proceedings, and their views seconded by another
secret committee at Brussels.

“In the midst of this ferment, the emperor strangely blending
conciliation and severity, published a decree reëstablishing the
university of Louvain, in all its rights and privileges. This ridiculous
versatility excited contempt instead of giving satisfaction, and
produced no effect in allaying internal disaffection, or checking the
efforts of the party in Holland. A regular plan of hostilities was
digested by the chiefs of the insurgents, and Van-der-Mersch, an officer
who had signalised himself in the imperial service during the seven
years’ war, was appointed commander. Van-der-Noot assumed the title of
plenipotentiary agent of the people of Brabant, and a manifesto, under
his signature, was published ‘in the name of the clergy and third estate
of Brabant, in union with many of the nobility, renouncing their
allegiance and declaring that they no longer considered Joseph as their
sovereign.’ This manifesto, as a declaration of war, was sent to the
government, and followed by the march of the patriot army into Brabant.

“With a view to counteract its effects, the government of Brussels
ordered it to be burnt by the common executioner, and published a long
vindication of the emperor; urging that although he had abrogated the
Joyous Entry, yet he had confirmed the essential principles of the
constitution, the security of persons and property. To awe the
disaffected within the walls, many persons of the first rank were
arrested on a charge of conspiracy, the gates were shut, palisadoes
planted on the fortifications, the citizens disarmed, and active
preparations made for defence.

“Meanwhile hostilities commenced. A party of patriots, marching from the
neighbourhood of Breda, surprised, on the 25th of October, the forts of
Lillo and Liefgenshoek, on the Scheld, made the scanty garrison
prisoners, and conveyed the guardship to Bergen-op-Zoom. Another body of
3000 men, under the command of Van-der-Mersch, penetrated to Turnhout,
and though many were armed only with bludgeons, pitchforks, and staves,
and without cannon, they repulsed the imperial general Schroeder, who
attacked them with 1500 men. This unexpected victory, proclaimed a
miracle by the monks, increased the spirit and numbers of the
insurgents, while it disheartened the royalists. But on the approach of
general d’Arberg with 7000 men, the patriots retired within the Dutch
territories, and concealing their arms, as usual, dispersed themselves
in Dutch Brabant and the neighbouring districts of Liege, waiting for a
more favourable opportunity to renew their incursions.

“While the imperial general remained at Hogstraten, the insurgents made
a new and more effectual attempt on the side of Flanders. A body
despatched by Van-der-Mersch approached Ghent, seized two of the gates,
and forcing their way into the town, were joined by the burghers with
cannon and ammunition; the garrison of 1200 men was overpowered by
numbers, driven across the Scheld, and blockaded in the barracks of the
fort of St. Pierre. D’Arberg with 3000 men hastened to the scene of
action, and occupied the citadel; but he was unable to stem the torrent
of revolt. Bruges and Courtray declared for the rebels; new succours
poured into Ghent; the fort of St. Pierre was stormed, the troops in the
barracks made prisoners, and d’Arberg himself forced to retire in the
night to Brussels. All Flanders was instantly emancipated; the states
assembling at Ghent, in November, 1789, published a declaration of
independence, and invited the other provinces to form a general
alliance. Terror and despondency spread to the seat of government, the
governors-general quitted Brussels; d’Alton and Trautmansdorf, whose
disputes were increased by the impending dangers, acted without concert;
d’Alton concentrated his troops to make a last effort for the
preservation of the capital, Trautmansdorf liberated the arrested
persons, restored arms to the citizens, and issued no less than
twenty-two declarations in the name of the emperor, hoping to conciliate
the people by suppressing the seminary at Antwerp, reëstablishing the
Joyous Entry, and declaring an amnesty.

“Of this confusion and alarm the patriot chiefs availed themselves with
equal vigour, skill, and promptitude. Vander-Mersch, assembling a body
of insurgents, made a new irruption into Brabant, seized Diest, and
advancing to Tirlemont, threatened Louvain. D’Alton instantly marched
against the rebels, but pressed by the insurgents of Flanders, and
unwilling to risk a battle which, if unfortunate, would have left him no
hope of retreat, he suddenly concluded, with the acquiescence of
Trautmansdorf, an armistice for ten days, which was to be provisionally
extended, with the consent of the states of Brabant. In this interval he
hoped to turn his forces against Flanders, but every moment of delay was
fatal to the imperial cause; the patriots anticipated his designs,
seduced whole troops of his soldiers, augmented their party by new
accessions of force, and organised an insurrection at Brussels, which
terminated the struggle. On the 8th of December the women and children
endeavored to demolish the intrenchments, and tore up the palisadoes.
The people assumed a national cockade; the streets resounded with the
cries of “Long live the patriots! Long live Van-der-Noot!” The soldiers
began to desert, and two companies of the regiment of Murray at once
joined the patriots.

“On the 11th, an officer imprudently attempting to snatch a cockade from
the hat of a burgher, a tumult ensued, and the inhabitants flew to arms.
The imperial troops, separated and discouraged, were attacked by
different bands of the populace, assisted by the deserters, and, after a
conflict which continued the greater part of the night, were driven into
the upper town. D’Alton, fallen from his former presumption, dreading
the approach of Van-der-Mersch on one side, and the Flemish army on the
other, doubtful of his troops, who were reduced to 5000 men, surrounded
by secret and declared enemies, was happy to secure his retreat by a
capitulation. He quitted Brussels on the evening of the 12th, leaving
the cannon, military chests and stores in the hands of the insurgents,
and took the route to Luxemburgh, pillaging, plundering, and wasting the
country as he passed. The example of the capital was followed by the
other towns; the imperial troops successively retired from Antwerp,
Louvain, and Mechlin into Luxemburgh, and the governor-general Bender,
assuming the command, prepared to defend that duchy, which alone
continued faithful to the house of Austria.

“The news of the revolution affected Joseph to an alarming degree, and
made a deep impression on his mind, already weakened by bodily and
mental infirmities. He burst into tears, complaining bitterly that he
had been deceived by the intelligence from Brussels; he acknowledged his
total inability to devise measures for the recovery of those valuable
dominions, and demanded the advice of Kaunitz, whom he had yet scarcely
deigned to consult on these momentous events. By his suggestions he
consented to adopt conciliatory measures, and count Philip Cobenzl, who
was supposed to possess great influence in the Netherlands, was
despatched to Brussels to tranquillise the people, by revoking the late
edicts, and restoring their privileges. These measures were, however,
adopted too late. When Cobenzl reached the frontier, all the provinces,
except Luxemburgh, were in the possession of the insurgents, the
congress was convoked to form a new constitution, and his overtures were
rejected with disdain.

“In this moment of distress Joseph found no resource. He in vain
appealed to the empire; he in vain obtained a circular letter from the
pope to the prelates of the Netherlands recommending them to return to
obedience. Embarrassed by the Turkish war, deriving no assistance from
the courts of Versailles and Petersburgh, his sole allies on the
Continent, he was reduced to the alternative of courting the
interposition of Prussia, his inveterate enemy, England, whom he had
betrayed and insulted, and Holland, whom he had despised and humbled.
His haughty spirit was broken by calamity and disease; he grasped even
at the shadow of a hope, and was eager to embrace any measure, however
degrading, for the recovery of the Netherlands, even though he should
reduce them again to that dependence on the Maritime Powers from which
it had been his boast to emancipate them. He hoped to conciliate Prussia
by cessions on the side of Poland; he trusted that England would gladly
tender her assistance to obtain the renewal of the Barrier Treaty; he
relied on the jealousy which the independence of the Netherlands would
excite in Holland; he flattered himself that the chiefs of the different
provinces would return to their allegiance, and accept a free
constitution under the guaranty of the triple alliance. But he was again
deceived. England refused to interfere in a cause which was opposed by
her great continental ally; Holland beheld his distress with
indifference, if not with satisfaction; Frederic William, who was
maturing a grand system for the reduction of Austria, fomented the
discontents in the Netherlands, and exerted all his efforts to inflame
that hostile spirit which pervaded every part of the hereditary
dominions, and was rising against Joseph in the different courts of
Europe.”

We have preferred taking this account from Coxe, not only because we
wish to strengthen our argument for the justice of the title of our book
by giving, whenever it is possible, the testimony of the conservative
historian, who cannot be suspected of colouring too darkly the acts of
what he considers the legitimate government; but because we think Mr.
Grattan has not done justice to the Netherlanders in his account of the
same transactions. In his sympathy with the special reforms of Joseph,
(his toleration acts, and abolition of old evils,) he overlooks the fact
that all along he was breaking the highest of all laws, and that which
entered in to the very fountains of the nation’s life, by setting aside
the _constitutional rights_ which were born with their birth, and which
can never be arbitrarily abolished by any foreign power without fatal
effects. Constitutional reform must be always a Phœnix death-birth. All
Joseph’s political philosophy was a mere maggot of his brain, fevered
into being by the exciting atmosphere of the eighteenth century, an
influence wholly external; it had no part or lot with that eternal
progressive force, which develops itself through the heart of men, and
acts because it must, in spite of all individual fancies, being rarely
understood in full by the very individuals by whom it manifests itself
the most strongly. George Washington indeed seems to have acted in sight
of his principle in his majestic self-abnegations, although we are
unable to pronounce with entire certainty on those secrets of the
individual heart and soul, which, in his case, were covered with such a
veil of natural and habitual reserve, as no friend was intimate enough
to dare lift up. Was it that there was too much of the future there, to
be appreciable in those days, by eyes profane?

It may be that as the race makes progress, there is a growing
recognition between those irresistible impulses of humanity, which are
deeper than all selfish emotions or volitions, and those higher ideas,
which correspond to them in the intellectual spheres; and hence a
consciousness, which is not weakening but strengthening, (inasmuch as it
repudiates all personalities,) may show itself in the great men of the
present and future. When Washington, risking everything upon a certain
battle, and being asked what was to be done if it was lost, calmly
replied, ‘it will then be necessary to retreat (he meant the people and
not merely the army) behind the Alleghanies, and defend ourselves
there;’ there was in his heart, if not in his head, the truth, that
there is nothing impossible to him that wills the right. Kossuth, sixty
years later, carries this grand will into the intellectual sphere, and
explains the coincidence of absolute justice, not only with this
instinct of the brave, but with interest—well understood, yet without
lowering the first to the limitations of the last, and thereby losing
the power to remove mountains, which comes only from the principle which
is the evidence of things unseen.

Reform is a great thing. It must work from within outward. If it
commences on the outside, while the principle that made all the abuses
is unchanged, as in the case of Joseph II., the bad is made worse, and
the futile agent is the first victim of the inevitable reaction. But
there is some reason to believe that the day of reform is dawning,—when
the old world—and the old world’s law—is brought face to face with the
new world, almost unconscious of any principle but self-help, and the
thorn-crowned martyr of the one, who represents the outraged
individuality and rights of nations, explains the meaning of the hour to
the other, by the words: ‘Thou hast as much religion as humanity—_and no
more_,’ adding, with the supreme grace of self-abnegation, ‘the works
which I do, and the words that I speak, are not mine, but His who sent
me.’ It is indeed an era in the political world, when not only the
experienced victim of the old system, but the nonchalant, unsentimental,
self-asserting politician of the new, unite in _seeing_, to say nothing
of declaring that nations have the same interest in international law,
which individuals have in the laws of their country.

When the individuality of nations, and the law that at once
individualizes and unites them, is promulgated in the light of
reason,[7] in which flourish all the ‘humanities’ of science, art,
virtue, and love, as well as in the dark depths of instinctive feeling,
whose issues are war, and all terrible retributions—there is some ground
for hope that the nations may

                                 “keep the heights
                   Which they are competent to gain.”

We will here observe that it is plain from the foregoing and the
subsequent pages, that the Anglo-Saxon race is not the only one whose
life has blossomed out into constitutional liberty. Other races have put
forth the same forms of life quite as vigorously, and as broadly, and if
we are to escape the same disastrous chances as have for three hundred
years sunk them into a _life-in-death_, it will be from no inherent
superiority in the germs of ours, but because the age of the world is
come which corresponds to that period of the life of man, when thought
meets feeling, and, recognising each other, instinct may become for
evermore one with wisdom.

Is it not possible that this national integrity and international
justice and love, is the ultimate attainment of humanity on earth; the
fullest realisation in this sphere of the prophetic vision, and the
poet’s dream; while the individual men which compose the nations, are
ever to exhibit that personal imperfection which is but the necessary
correlative of a sublimer destiny than may be within the scope of the
finite mind to comprehend? Could this be established, a vast deal of the
finest intellect and character, whose energies are now dissipated in
visionary theories of personal perfection, would be concentrated to
organise a perfect political system, which can only be just for each
when it is for all; and without which in each nation, no personal
integrity can be unfolded to become the subject of culture.

In considering the crimes of the house of Austria, we must not forget
Poland, although here the guilt is shared by the Brandenburgs and
Romanoffs.

Ruthière’s, “Anarchie de Pologne” gives, in an entertaining form, a
tolerably fair picture of its character, and the working of what an
absolutist calls its _no-government_. That a civilized country, he says,
should go on for centuries, improving in all human culture, _without a
government_, shows the extraordinary goodness of the people. It were
well if this pleasant book, which contains also the most authentic
account of Catherine II.’s accession to the Russian throne, were
translated into English. But a grave work, and the highest authority
respecting Poland, is Lelewel’s history, also yet untranslated. We are
sorry that our limits allow us to give but a few observations to correct
some current errors. It has been the policy of the European governments
around Poland, to misrepresent, as well as to interfere with, the
operations of its constitution. This necessarily arose from a principle
of self-protection; nothing was so disastrous for them, as the peace,
prosperity, and progress of a republican country in their midst. All the
motives which impelled to the League of Cambray, would operate to this
end respecting Poland, whose partition was the supreme act of the
diplomacy which, as Sismondi said, began in Europe in 1508.

Poland was never a feudal country. The nobles and peasants are of the
same race; and service in war, or a university education availed to give
nobility to the child of the meanest peasant. The veto power, by the
abuse of which the country was made weak, when it needed to be strongest
against foreign influence, was only developed into disastrous action
through foreign influence, brought to bear upon the Diet; because, as
has been already intimated, it was a life and death interest of the
surrounding despotisms to prevent the national progress and purification
of a government in their midst, essentially republican, although its
chief magistrate was named king. The same veto power existed in the
Arragonese constitution, and never seemed to have had any irregular
action. Of course, this, or almost any other safety-valve of liberty,
may be used for the worst end, as soon as a nation is vitiated by bad
faith within, whether of indigenous growth, or of foreign planting. In
the case of Poland, it is obvious, from Ruthière, that it was of foreign
planting.

But our object is not political disquisition, but history. When the
Poles first began to elect kings from foreign nations, it was partly in
order that the equality of their own families should be preserved, and
some should have the prestige of sovereignty connected with them. At the
first election, after the death of the last Jagellon, Maximilian II.
endeavoured to obtain the crown for his son Ernest, but Henry of Anjou
was chosen. After the latter abandoned Poland, to succeed his brother in
France, Maximilian made new efforts for Ernest, and was himself chosen
by one party. This was no great gratification to him, for the limited
monarchy of Poland had few charms for him. While he hesitated about the
_pacta conventa_, his more active opponent, Stephen Batory, hastened
into Poland, and signed this capitulation, which so greatly increased
his party that he was forcibly chosen, although Maximilian did at length
accede to the _pacta conventa_, and, secure of the Czar, appealed to the
empire, and endeavoured to excite the kings of Denmark and Sweden
against his rival, “whom he stigmatized,” says Coxe, “as a vassal of the
Turks.” But death interrupted his operations on the 12th of October,
1576, and Stephen Batory was elected.

The next Polish election, in which the house of Austria interfered, was
in the beginning of the eighteenth century, when the Emperor, Charles
VI., with the aid of the Czarina, placed Augustus II. upon the throne,
on condition of his giving his sanction to the Pragmatic Sanction. By
this intrigue, the choice of the nation, Stanislaus Leczynski, was set
aside. This was in 1720.

In 1763, on the death of Augustus II., Maria Theresa encouraged his son
Xavier to become a candidate for the crown of Poland, in opposition to
Stanislaus Poniatowski and other Polish noblemen. Through the powerful
influence of Catherine II., Stanislaus was certain of success. But Maria
Theresa, seeing that by this a preponderance was given to Russian
influence in Poland, published a manifesto, declaring that the Poles had
the right of appointing a sovereign by a free and voluntary election,
and, with the aid of France, prepared to second the claims of the Saxon
house. Catherine, on the other hand, gained the king of Prussia, and the
Porte, and they jointly issued a proclamation exhorting, “or rather,”
says Coxe, “commanding the Poles to elect none but a Piast for their
king.” A Russian army enforced this, and Stanislaus Augustus was
elected. Maria Theresa, ill-seconded by France, concluded to push the
matter no further.

The wrongs of Poland are due not wholly to the House of Austria. Prussia
and Russia were indeed the principal aggressors. Frederic the Great
undoubtedly first projected the partition, but his first step was to
gain Austria, because he was aware that Russia was so sure of the whole
of the prey, she would oppose dismemberment. The emperor Joseph I. went
to Neiss, to negotiate with him upon the subject. Two years after, a
second interview took place, and the map of Poland was laid out before
them, when the limits of the respective portions were adjusted, the
largest share being assigned to Russia, in order to secure her
concurrence. The Austrian and Prussian troops entered Poland on the
pretence of preventing the plague, and Maria Theresa first presented her
vague claims on certain Polish districts, on the specious pretext of
protecting them from Russia and Prussia. The Austrian troops first
occupied sixteen towns of the county of Zips; and upon this, Frederic
proposed to Catherine the dismemberment; and the respective portions
were specified at St. Petersburgh, in February, 1772. “Maria Theresa
felt or _affected to feel_,” says Coxe, “great scruples of conscience,
in participating in the disgrace of this infamous transaction; but she
was not the less exorbitant in her demands, and extended her claims
almost to the half of Poland.” She afterwards made a merit of yielding
something, but retained Red Russia, Galicia, and parts of the
palatinates of Cracow, Sandomir, Lublen, Bezk, Volhynia, and Podolia, a
fertile and extensive country, with a population of ten millions and a
half, and the valuable salt mines of Wieliczka, whose revenue to the
republic was 90,000 pounds a year. This territory was consolidated and
annexed to the Austrian dominions under the ancient appellation of the
kingdoms of Galicia and Lodomeria.

The plunder of these countries by Maria Theresa’s troops was immense.
Even Catherine of Russia reproached the Court of Vienna for the
exactions of their troops, and extorted from the emperor a humiliating
disavowal of their conduct. When we read of the wagon-loads of gold,
among which were the spoils of churches, candelabras of the size of a
grown man, of solid gold, carried into Austria, we are led to ask,
whence came this prodigious wealth? and this question leads us to
remember that from time immemorial there had been a land trade extending
into Persia and other rich Asiatic territories, and that the
constitutional law, prohibiting Poles from engaging on either side in a
sectarian war, had made the fertile plains of Poland the granary of
Europe, during the terrible religious wars that raged over the West of
Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Poland, too, from its
constitutional laws of toleration, was the asylum for the persecuted
merchants and mechanics of the Jewish and Protestant sects, driven for
many centuries from other more bigoted countries.

In giving an account of the state of the several parts of Poland, after
the partition, Lelewel, having enumerated oppressions common to all of
them, makes the following remarks:

“There was, however, this difference between the Austrian government and
the Prussian, that the latter, more fond of peace, more economical,
favoured the propagation of knowledge, augmented the number of primary
schools, carried instruction to the poorest, and tolerated the
manifestations of national sentiments, that the Poles did not know how
to repress. Without speaking of liberty, the Prussian government
respected individual liberty and property. Justice was equally
administered to nobles and peasants, without distinction of class; both
were subjected to military service. No exception was made except in
favour of the Jews. At Warsaw they were permitted to have a national
theatre; the polytechnic society, founded by some patriots for the end
of conserving the Polish nationality, was authorised by the king of
Prussia. It was not so in Galicia. There the emperor proclaimed the
liberty of the peasants, forgetting or ignoring that long before the
fall of Poland, the quatriennial or constituent diet had guaranteed it
to them. But he erected it into a principle that everything belonged to
the emperor, property and persons, and that he could dispose of them
according to his good pleasure, as of things that were his. Occupied by
continual wars with France, the emperor exhausted his estates, and
especially Galicia, by exactions. Whoever could bear arms, whether
Gipsies, Jews, or Christians, were enrolled, and forced to serve as
soldiers, under German counts and barons. His enormous imposts not only
took away their money, but forced them to give up their landed property.
To repair the immense losses of his campaigns, he had recourse to paper
money of which he reduced the value afterwards, or suppressed it
altogether; and he circulated copper money qualified with silver, and
forced it to be received as silver. In short, it was an odious
spoliation and a degrading slavery. In order to attach the magistrates
and principal inhabitants to himself, he sold to them titles of counts
and barons; as the price of this imperial complaisance they were obliged
to pay very dear.

“There were many who did not blush to buy these honours, and to disgrace
their posterity with them, forgetting that the ancient laws of the
republic deprived of the rights of citizenship, and declared infamous
those who accepted titles from foreign powers.

“That the dismemberment of Poland, by Austria, Prussia, and Russia, did
not destroy it, Lelevel’s faithful history proves. Not only Kosciusko’s
struggles, and the revolution of 1831, suppressed mainly through the
perfidy of Louis Philippe, acting in combination with the generous
confidence of Skrzynecki, but the previous educational efforts of
Czartoryski at the university of Wilna, and the energy with which the
Poles repulsed the archduke Ferdinand from Warsaw in 1809; and generally
fought for Napoleon, in the vain confidence that he would restore their
republic. It may be that had Napoleon justified their long cherished
hopes, and kept the faith he promised by the agents whom he sent to
Warsaw to negotiate for assistance, previous to his Russian campaign,
the result of that extraordinary movement would have been far different,
and when he fell back into Lithuania, he would have found himself
sustained; but his cold-blooded evasions, when he had passed through
Warsaw, after it had risked Alexander’s fury for his sake, had finally
convinced the Poles that they should ‘put no trust in princes;’ and they
left him to the elements which were as humane as himself. The
republicanism which is to be established by autocracy is as futile as
the reforms which come from the same quarter; and Napoleon Bonaparte’s
history is as clear a lesson upon the former pretence, as Joseph II.’s
was upon the latter.”

We must leave, however, the history of Poland, so illustrative of our
subject, in order to come to the history of Hungary. There is no
complete work on this subject extant in the English language. In the
Spring of 1850, there was republished in Boston, by Ticknor, Fields and
Co., from the London edition, a pamphlet by J. Toulmin Smith, called
“Parallels of the Constitutional History of England and Hungary,” which
should be studied by those persons who fancy and assert that
Anglo-Saxons are the only people to whom constitutional liberty is
natural. In the May of the same year, there appeared also in the
Christian Examiner of Boston, an article upon Hungary, referring to a
recent publication of A. de Gerando, _De l’Esprit publique en Hongrie
depuis la Revolution Française_, and intended to rectify the false
statements made in an article in the N. A. Review of January, 1850,
where the Hungarian movement of 1848–9, as well as all the past history
of Hungary, were vilified. This article in the Examiner, which exhibited
a wonderful familiarity with the Hungarian language and literature, as
well as a profound and accurate knowledge of the history of modern
Europe in general, and an extraordinary acquaintance with the periodical
literature of the day, and the influences under which each individual
contributor to it had written, when the subject matter touched the
politics of Hungary, contains a masterly treatment of the
misrepresentations which despotism makes of the history of freedom; and
this part of the subject was pursued still farther in two successive
articles in the same periodical, one published in November, 1850, and
the other in March, 1851, from which also may be gathered an authentic
account of the actual transactions in Hungary during 1848–9. All three
articles, together with those in the N. A. Review which called them
forth, would make a valuable volume, if for nothing else, to show the
difference between writing history as a gossip, and writing it as a
critic.

We confine ourselves now to extracting a portion of the first article,
which carries the history up to the time that the war between Hungary
and Austria began. It was from the same article, that Mr. Secretary
Webster quoted the Hungarian statistics with which he illustrated the
speech he made at the congressional dinner given at Washington in honour
of Kossuth, January, 1852.

“The Hungarian nation has been distinguished, from its first appearance
in history, for uniting to a passionate love of liberty a scrupulous
reverence for law. The Magyars did not enter the plains of Dacia an
undisciplined rabble. From the first, they possessed a fixed form of
government, and were distinguished for their subordination to their
leaders and their laws. To these habits of discipline in which the
Magyars were trained,[8] to their love of order, and regard for law, it
is to be ascribed, that they did not pass away, like the common hordes
of barbarian adventurers, but established a permanent kingdom in the
country they invaded. To these qualities, not less than to their
courage, is to be ascribed their successful maintenance of their
constitutional rights against all the attacks of a power before which
the liberties of so many other nations have fallen.

“The ancient institutions of the Magyars were eminently democratic.
Their chief ruler was elected by the votes of the people. For the first
century after their establishment in the country, he received only the
title of _Vezér_, or leader. In the year 1000, they bestowed the title
of king on Stephen, of the family of Arpad, the leader under whose
guidance they had entered Pannonia. The power of the king was, however,
strictly limited. The consent of the people was necessary to give
efficacy to every royal act. The excellent prince who first filled the
throne of Hungary had no disposition to infringe the liberties of the
people. On the contrary, he endeavoured to guard them against the
encroachments of future sovereigns. He framed a code of laws, founded on
the ancient institutions of the Magyars, which have ever since been
regarded as of the highest authority. These statutes were drawn up for
the guidance of his son Emeric, whom he educated as his successor in the
kingdom. The enlightened and humane spirit in which these decrees are
composed gives a very high idea of the civilization and political
advancement of Hungary at this period. We find in them an express
recognition of the principle of universal equality:—”_Omnes homines
unius sunt conditionis._“[9] It is in the following terms that he
prescribed the duty of a king towards his subjects:—

“‘Let them be to thee, my son, as brothers and fathers; reduce none of
them to servitude, neither call them thy servants. Let them fight for
thee, not serve thee. Govern them without violence and without pride,
peacefully, humbly, humanely. Remembering that nothing elevates but
humility, that nothing abases but pride and an evil will.

“‘My son, I pray thee, I command thee, to show thyself propitious, not
only to thy kindred, not only to princes, to leaders, to the rich, not
only to thy country people, but likewise to strangers, and to all that
come unto thee. Be patient with all, not only with the powerful, but
with those lacking power. Bear ever in thy mind this precept of the
Lord:—I will have mercy and not sacrifice.’”[10]

“He recognizes the right of the people to depose an unworthy prince:—

“‘If thou art mild and just, then shalt thou be called a king, and the
son of a king; but if thou art proud and violent, they will deliver thy
kingdom to another.’”[11]

“This right was exercised in the reign of his immediate successor.
Emeric, the son of Stephen, died before his father. The people elected,
after the death of Stephen, chiefly through the influence of his widow,
her brother, Peter, a German prince. They had reason to repent their
choice of a foreigner, who had no comprehension of the nature of free
institutions. He was deposed in the third year of his reign. The grounds
of his expulsion were, that he had banished and put to death many,
without observing the due forms of law; that he had _bestowed important
offices in the kingdom upon foreigners_; that he had _prevented the
states from holding their diet and their accustomed assemblies_. After
this experience of foreign rule, the Hungarians returned to the House of
Arpad, and chose their kings from this family, until its extinction, in
the person of Andrew III., in 1301. The princes of this dynasty, with
few exceptions, were just and patriotic kings, who understood the origin
and true objects of government, and held their power for the benefit of
the people, not for their own selfish aggrandizement. There are traits
recorded of many of them, which prove them to have been the worthy
successors of St. Stephen. ‘The republic is not mine,’ said Gèza II.,
‘it is I who belong to the republic. God has raised me to the throne, in
order that I may maintain the laws.’ In 1222, Andrew II. issued the
celebrated code of statutes known by the name of the ‘Golden Bull,’ by
which the decrees of St. Stephen were confirmed, and some new laws added
to them, designed to secure yet further the liberties of the people. The
Golden Bull has been termed a charter of aristocratic privileges. It was
so, in the same sense that the great charter of English liberties may be
called so. The Golden Bull corresponds very closely to the Magna Charta
of King John, both in its provisions, and as regards the class of
persons whose liberties it was designed to protect. The privileges of
Magna Charta were expressly restricted to _freemen_. The provisions of
the Golden Bull were, in like manner, considered as applicable only to
the class of _nobles_, as those possessed of the rights of citizenship
were called in Hungary. At the period when these edicts were
promulgated, the rights of the lowest class of the people were very
little considered in any part of Europe. But the recognition of the
principles of just government in the laws of a country is of infinite
value, however the circumstances of the time may allow only of their
partial application.

“We will here transcribe some of the most important of the ancient laws
which, in Hungary, guarded the liberties of the subject from the
encroachments of the prince. These laws have never been repealed, but
repeatedly confirmed. It is to these, the fundamental laws of the
kingdom of Hungary,—to whose observance and maintenance the kings of
Hungary are bound by their coronation oath,—that the Hungarians have
constantly appealed in their long struggle against royal usurpation; and
it is by these that the cause between them and their sovereign is to be
judged.

“By the constitution of Hungary, the power of making laws belongs to the
king and the people conjointly:—

“‘The king, having convened the people, shall ask them whether such or
such laws are pleasing to them or not. If the people answer, _Yes_,
these decrees shall pass into laws. But it will most commonly happen,
that the people (_populus_) will themselves decide unanimously on many
things which they think conducive to the public welfare. If the prince
shall accept these decrees, they shall, in like manner, have the force
of law.

“‘It is to be known, in the first place, that the laws bind the prince
who has made them, at the request of the people; according to the maxim,
‘Suffer the law which thou hast made thyself.’

“‘The king is bound to answer, in the presence of the Lord Palatine of
this kingdom, to all those who have any complaint to make, or any cause
to plead against him.

“‘It is decreed that the king shall observe the peace, and cause it to
be observed; _neither shall he make war, nor introduce any foreign
troops into Hungary, and the parts which are annexed to it, without the
knowledge and consent of the states of the kingdom_.’

“The king was not allowed, even under the most urgent circumstances, to
raise subsidies or contributions without the consent of the diet. It was
even provided, that if any particular county should, by its own motion,
and without the consent of the whole kingdom, offer the king any subsidy
or contribution, the nobles of that county, being by this act convicted
of treason and perjury, should lose the rights and privileges of the
nobility, and be denied all intercourse with the other counties. It was
likewise interdicted to the king, to employ foreigners in the offices of
the state, or to give them the command of garrisons in Hungary.

“No Hungarian could be tried out of the kingdom, even if the king had
with him the ordinary judges of the kingdom. Nor could any one be
condemned without being cited and convicted according to the forms of
law.

“Our readers may judge, by these provisions of the Hungarian
constitution, whether it was indeed a mere heap of feudal rubbish, or
whether it is worthy of a place beside the old constitution of England,
which, with all its imperfections, we revere as the source from which
our wider liberties have sprung.

“If Hungary had continued under the government of upright and wise
kings, it would, doubtless, at the present day, have been one of the
most powerful states in Europe,—powerful, not only by extent and wealth,
but by the character of the people whose love of freedom, and generosity
united, would have developed a very high order of civilization. All that
was contrary to justice and sound policy in their institutions would,
under a government disposed to further their efforts for improvement,
long since have been reformed, and they would have kept pace with, if
they had not surpassed, the most enlightened nations of Europe in social
and political progress. But, early in the sixteenth century, they passed
under the sway of a dynasty, the most selfish and unprincipled that ever
controlled the destinies of a nation. This dynasty has for three hundred
years pursued one undeviating system of policy,—a system of perfidy and
cruelty, transmitted, with the sceptre, from father to son. Never have
the Austrian kings of Hungary given a thought to the prosperity and
advancement of the nation confided to their charge. Their only aim has
been to reduce it to absolute subjection, and to obliterate every trace
of its ancient liberties. When foreign wars have threatened the safety
of the empire, the Austrian government has been lavish of concessions
and promises, to be retracted and forgotten the moment the return of
peace left the king of Hungary at leisure to turn his forces against the
liberties of his own subjects. The Hungarians, on their part, have
displayed towards their perfidious rulers all the generosity and loyalty
that could have been due to the most patriotic princes. A hundred times
deceived, they have again trusted, again to become victims of new
perfidy. Through a course of three centuries, the Hungarians have been
alternately pouring out their blood and treasure in wars, whose honour
and profit were not for them, and, in the intervals of outward
tranquillity, maintaining a struggle for national existence with their
own king. Thus the season of peace was for them the period of greatest
danger; the prosperity of the prince was the misfortune of the people.

“Ferdinand of Austria was invested with the sacred crown of St. Stephen
on the 1st of November, 1527. He took the oath of allegiance to the
constitution of Hungary, and voluntarily added words of assurance to the
assembled people, of his love for the Hungarian nation, and his respect
for the laws. He did not owe his election to the throne of Hungary to
the preference of the nation, but to the cruel circumstances in which it
found itself placed. The designs of the Archdukes of Austria on this
kingdom had long been manifest, and had, hitherto, been effectually
repelled. But after the death of Louis II., in the fatal battle of
Mohács, it was judged impracticable to maintain, in addition to the war
in which they were already engaged with the Turks, a contest with the
Austrian pretender to the crown. It was decided to convert one of their
enemies into an ally, by voluntarily accepting him as their king. This
measure was effected chiefly through the instrumentality of some
powerful nobles, and did not receive the approbation of the great body
of the nation. None of the desired results were obtained by it. The
German troops pillaged the country more mercilessly than the Turks had
done, and extended their ravages through parts of the kingdom where
these could never have penetrated. Nor did the Hungarians find, in the
Austrian alliance, that protection against their Ottoman enemies which
they had promised themselves. It was no part of the Austrian policy to
succour Hungary; its aim was rather to weaken and impoverish it, by
whatever means. The victories which the emperors of Germany gained over
the Turks, by Hungarian money and arms, brought no advantage to the
Hungarian nation. The Turks were allowed to make constant predatory
incursions into Hungary, in time of supposed peace. All representations
to the king on this subject were unheeded. He would neither remonstrate
with the Sultan on these infractions of the treaties, nor suffer the
Hungarians themselves to enter into any composition with the Turks. Thus
they maintained, alone, a constant border warfare, while, at the same
time, they were forced to support large bodies of foreign troops, more
cruel and more destructive than the Turks themselves. To such
destitution were the common people reduced, that parents even sold their
children to the infidels to save them from starvation. The contributions
in money, extorted by the Austrian government in one year, exceeded the
amount of the tribute which had been exacted by the Turks in ten. Such
was the condition of Hungary for the space of nearly two hundred
years.[12]

“The Archdukes of Austria were not content to wear the crown of Hungary
by the election of the people. It was their aim, from the first, to make
it the absolute property of their house. Ferdinand I. had already
declared the crown hereditary, but he did not succeed in having this
claim allowed by the nation. In order to secure the succession to his
son, he caused him to be crowned in his own lifetime. His successors for
one hundred and fifty years were forced to take the same precaution. In
every case the form of election by the people was observed, and the
prince was required to take the coronation oath which bound him to
maintain the Hungarian constitution. Thus the monarchy remained elective
until the time of Leopold I. This prince had been crowned at Presburg in
1655, during the life of his father. Before his coronation, the
conditions upon which he was to receive the crown were offered him,
according to custom. He accepted and swore to them, and caused a diploma
to be made of them and inserted in the public acts. All these
conditions, like his predecessors, he had constantly violated; and at
length, in 1687, at the close of a successful war with the Turks, of
which, as usual, Hungary had borne the expense and the suffering, he
felt himself strong enough to carry into effect the long-deferred
project of his house. He knew, however, that he was to encounter no
slight obstacle in the resistance of the Hungarian nobles, the
patriotism and courage of many of whom he had already proved. He
provided against this difficulty beforehand. Immediately before he
summoned the diet that was to sanction this change in the constitution
of the kingdom, the discovery of a fabulous conspiracy against the
government gave him an excuse for ridding himself of all those whose
courage or patriotism might offer hindrance to his designs. A court was
opened at Debreczin, presided over by Caraffa, a name more infamous than
that of Jeffreys, and here, under the most horrible tortures, numberless
victims perished. The trials were conducted secretly; the public never
knew of what the sufferers were accused, or on what evidence they were
condemned. A yet more terrible tribunal was established at Epéries.
Caraffa repaired thither, and to this bar were dragged, from every part
of the kingdom, all whose virtue rendered them suspected, or whose
wealth offered a temptation to the cupidity of their judges.[13] A
scaffold was erected in the midst of the city, where, from March to
December, the executioners were kept constantly at work. The following
passage from the _Histoire des Revolutions de Hongrie_[14] will give the
reader some idea of the horrors of this time:—

“‘There were seen in this city thirty men, dressed in green, all
executioners, or servants of executioners, employed in administering the
torture, in beheading, breaking on the wheel, and quartering. Dragoons
traversed the country, to seek for persons of condition, whether
Catholics or Protestants. These were seized, some in the church, some in
the streets, others in their houses, wherever they could be found. It
was in vain that some alleged their innocence, and that others had
recourse to the amnesty which they had received for past offences. They
were cast into dungeons, and underwent the torture, ordinary and
extraordinary, to compel them to avow the crime of which they were
accused, and to declare their accomplices.... The sons, brothers, and
relations of those who were thus tortured cast themselves at the feet of
Caraffa, to conjure him to follow, at least, some rules prescribed by
the laws of the country, or any others which are in use among
Christians.’”

“Caraffa referred them to the court of Vienna. Here they found a
gracious hearing, and received promises of mercy for their friends; but
the executions continued, and when the petitioners returned to Epéries,
it was to find those whose pardon they thought they had obtained already
dead, or to have their remonstrances unheeded by the judges, who had
been furnished with private instructions.

“It was under these circumstances, that Leopold summoned the diet of
Hungary to crown ‘the most serene Archduke Joseph, as their _hereditary_
lord and king.’ It was not in the power of the Hungarians to disregard
this summons. The troops of the emperor occupied all the fortified
places of Hungary and Transylvania, and the scaffold at Epéries remained
standing even to the day of the coronation. Yet, with all this, the diet
did not yield without a remonstrance. In their reply to the king’s
demand, they first set forth the grievances of the nation, and demanded
the withdrawal of the foreign troops. They then expressed their
willingness to elect the Archduke Joseph according to the ancient forms,
but declined to acknowledge him as their hereditary king. The court now
made use of every art to win the diet to consent. Every thing was
promised. The patriotic members were bribed with assurances of the
speedy redress of the grievances of the nation; the selfish with the
promise of office and emolument for themselves. But there were among
them still men who were not to be blinded by falsehood, and who were
unassailable by motives of fear or interest. Among the most
distinguished and the most influential was the Count Drascowich, who
held the office of _Judex Curiæ_, Grand Judge of the kingdom. This
nobleman fell suddenly dead on quitting a banquet where he had just
received a letter from the hands of a messenger from the king. The
servants of Austria saw in his death the just judgment of Heaven on the
head of the opposer of the will of royalty. The Hungarians gave it
another interpretation.

“The diet at length succumbed to the wishes of the king. But his triumph
was only partial. The states yielded their consent only on conditions
from which they firmly refused to depart. They stipulated, first, that
in case of the failure of male heirs of the house of Hapsburgh, the
Hungarian nation should recover its rights over the crown, and the
kingdom should become once more elective. The second condition was, that
the king should still be obliged to take the oath to maintain the
constitution, and that the people of Hungary “should preserve, under the
hereditary monarchy, all the privileges, immunities, rights, customs,
and liberties, which they had enjoyed under the elective monarchy.” The
emperor assented to these stipulations, requiring only the exception
from the chapter of their privileges of the thirty-first article of the
Golden Bull, which gave to the nobles the right of armed resistance,
without incurring the penalties of treason, in case of an open attack on
their liberties by the king. This article was rescinded. On the 9th of
December, 1687, the ceremony of the coronation took place. Thus did the
crown of Hungary become hereditary in the House of Hapsburgh.

“Charles III., the successor of Joseph, had no son. By the terms of the
act of the diet of Presburg, of 1687, the crown must therefore become,
at his death, once more elective. This prince had reigned with somewhat
more moderation than his predecessors. He had, indeed, like them,
infringed the laws and trifled with the interests of Hungary, but his
government had been less insupportably cruel than theirs. This
comparative clemency of the reigning prince, and yet more, the dread of
the civil wars which would result from a contested succession, induced
the Hungarian nation to give their consent to the Pragmatic Sanction, by
which the right of succession was assured to the daughters of Charles
and their descendants. By the term of the Pragmatic Sanction, the
succession was to be transmitted _in the order of primogeniture_, and
without division of the kingdom. It was accepted by the Hungarians only
on the same conditions that were attached to the act of 1687. The sacred
crown of Hungary was not to be carried out of the kingdom, and no prince
was to assume it until he had taken the oath to observe and maintain the
laws, customs, privileges, etc., of the kingdom. This instrument was
guaranteed by all the principal powers of Europe. Hungary alone was
faithful to the engagement. We need not dwell here on that celebrated
scene, better known than any other passage in Hungarian history, where
in the place of labored harangues, the flash of sabres, and the emphatic
words, ‘_Vitam et sanguinem_,’[15] answered the appeal of the betrayed
and deserted queen.

“Maria Theresa was the first of her house who can be said to have
ascended the Hungarian throne by the free choice of the nation. In her
reign, for the first time since the accession of the House of Austria, a
sentiment of loyalty to their sovereign sprang up in the breasts of the
Hungarian people. They entertained for their queen that affection which
generous minds feel towards those whom they have benefited. Maria
Theresa was not insensible to the devotion of her people. But the
gratitude of the woman could not overcome the selfishness of the despot.
She expressed her sense of her obligations to the Hungarians in every
way in which she could do so without any sacrifice of her convenience,
or of the schemes of absolute dominion never lost sight of by any
sovereign of the Austrian dynasty. She pursued these schemes with a
prudence unknown to her predecessors. She avoided giving any violent
shock to the national feeling of the Magyars by a direct attack upon
their institutions; she won them by fair words and lavish encomiums,
which a generous and confiding people, unused to even so much
consideration for their rights as they received from her, accepted as if
they had been substantial benefits. Even in the promotion of measures
really advantageous to the kingdom, Maria Theresa took care to bring
herself a step nearer to the accomplishment of her designs. She put
forth decrees of her own authority, without the concurrence of the diet;
as, for example, those regulating the urbarial relations, which the
nobles, in consideration of their manifest justice and expediency,
accepted, notwithstanding the illegal manner of their promulgation.

“Joseph II., the son and successor of Maria Theresa, was a man of more
activity of intellect and greater individuality of character than often
fall to the lot of princes in modern times. He possessed, together with
these qualities, an obstinate and imperious temper. He had been
carefully educated by a Hungarian tutor, a man of extensive learning and
enlightened views, and had thus acquired certain philanthropic and
liberal ideas, which, engrafted on his original disposition, and forced
to reconcile themselves with his schemes of usurpation, made him a
strange compound of tyrant and reformer. From the commencement of his
reign, he declared his intention of governing by his own absolute
authority. He disdained to receive the crown from the Hungarian nation,
and refused to take the oath of fidelity to the laws. His reign was one
continued contest with the Hungarian people. He decreed the entire
subversion of their ancient constitution and laws, which he would
replace by model institutions of his own. He gave the Hungarians three
years in which to learn the German language, at the expiration of which
time no man could hold an office or serve his country in any capacity
who had not made himself master of that tongue. The Hungarians resisted,
by petitions, by remonstrances, and by the refusal of subsidies. At
length they spoke a language to which he was forced to listen. The
contest ended, as all former contests of this sort had ended, in the
defeat of the usurper. Joseph was forced to cancel the work of his whole
reign. He revoked all his decrees, and declared that the kingdom was to
be regarded, in respect to its political institutions, as standing in
the same position as when he began his reign. He announced his intention
of assembling the diet. He promised to submit to the ceremony of
coronation, and to take the oath of allegiance to the Hungarian
constitution. He restored the regalia of Hungary to the charge of the
nation. But he was not destined to wear these emblems of royalty by
their gift. On the day when the sacred crown of St. Stephen was received
at Buda, in the midst of universal acclamations and the roar of cannon,
the monarch lay dead in his palace at Vienna.

“Leopold, the brother of Joseph, warned by the example of his
predecessor, began his reign with voluntary assurances to the Hungarian
people of his earnest intention to govern according to the laws. He
immediately convened the diet, the first which had been called for
twenty-five years. He was solemnly crowned according to the ancient
customs, and took the oath to maintain the constitution. But this was
not deemed by the nation a sufficient guarantee for the safety of their
institutions. The diet, accordingly, passed a number of decrees,
defining the powers and duties of the king, and the rights of the
nation. These decrees contained nothing new. All the articles already
made part of the law of the kingdom. But the diet deemed it essential,
in view of the danger which the liberties of Hungary had so recently
incurred, that these statutes should be once more solemnly confirmed by
the diet, and receive the royal sanction. Of these acts we will cite
some of the most important:

  “‘Articles 2 and 3. Within six months after the death of the king, his
  successor shall be crowned at Presburg, and shall take the oath to
  observe the laws, liberties, and privileges of the kingdom.’

  “‘Art. 10. Hungary is a free and independent kingdom, in no way
  subordinate to any other people or kingdom, and is to be governed by
  its lawfully crowned king, not according to the customs of the other
  hereditary dominions, but according to its own laws, rights, and
  customs.’

  “‘Art. 12. The right of making, repealing, and interpreting the laws
  belongs to the lawfully crowned king, and to the states of the realm
  in the diet assembled, conjointly; and this right cannot be exercised
  except in the diet of the nation. The king shall never attempt to
  govern by edicts or patents, which, moreover, it shall not be lawful
  for any authorities to receive, except where such patents are merely
  designed for the more effectual publication of ordinances legally
  enacted.’

  “‘Art. 19. The impost shall never be levied by the king, but freely
  voted by the diet.’

“It was likewise decreed, that the diet was for the future to be
assembled every three years, and oftener, if the public welfare demanded
it. The right of free discussion was likewise asserted. The sacred crown
of the kingdom was to be kept in the castle of Buda, and never to be
taken thence without the consent of the diet.

“Thus, in 1790, the fundamental laws of the kingdom of Hungary were
solemnly reënacted by the diet, and confirmed by the king.

“But the diet of 1790 did not confine its labours to the confirmation of
the ancient laws, or the defence of nationality. From this period we are
to behold the Hungarian nation under a new aspect. Hitherto we have seen
the nobility of the country successfully contending for the preservation
of their chartered rights and privileges against the usurpations of
Austria. We are now to see them engaging with equal energy and
resolution in a yet nobler contest. The attack which Joseph II. had made
on the constitution of Hungary had, in the course of the discussions
which it excited, turned the attention of the nation back upon the
earlier periods of their history, and roused inquiry into the original
nature and design of their institutions. In this investigation it was
impossible for the Hungarians not to become aware that these
institutions had not only been tampered with and defaced by Austrian
policy, but that many abuses had been suffered to creep into them, with
the connivance of the nation itself, whether from the example of
neighbouring countries, or the exigencies of barbarous times. They
perceived, moreover, that many customs which, in their origin, had been
reasonable and convenient, were now wholly unsuited to the needs of the
age, and were inconsistent with the prosperity and advancement of the
nation. They became sensible, above all, that the position in which the
privileged classes stood with regard to the great body of the people was
an unjust one, and wholly at variance with those principles of liberty
and universal equality which lay at the foundation of their political
constitution. With a people possessed of so high a sense of honour as
the Magyars, to perceive this injustice was to resolve to repair it. Of
this liberal movement in Hungary, whose first public demonstration was
made in the diet of 1790, De Gerando thus speaks:—

“‘From this time they (the patriots of Hungary) declared that, in a
modern state, liberty ought to be the portion, not of a few, but of all.
They asserted that the old word _privileges_ ought to be abolished, to
be replaced by a word applicable to all,—_rights_. This comprehension of
their epoch led them to accomplish an unexampled act, to give to the
world the new spectacle which now meets our eyes;—an aristocracy
demolishing, of its own accord, stone by stone, the aristocratic
edifice; a nobility, under the eyes of an inert government, taking the
initiative in pronouncing the word of civil equality, and pursuing its
task with order and perseverance, in spite of all obstacles.’—_De
l’Esprit Public en Hongrie_, p. 96.

“The conduct of the Hungarian reformers is rendered yet more worthy of
admiration by the fact, that no discontent on the part of the peasants
themselves had called the attention of the nobles to the question of
their wrongs. The reformers of Hungary were led by their own sense of
justice, without any external impulse, to undertake the work of the
emancipation and elevation of the people. But, while it was conceded by
all that a change must take place in the relations between the people
and their manorial lords, the manner in which this change was to be
effected was matter for grave consideration. The most ardent reformers
proposed the immediate abolition of the urbarial dues, without
compensation to the proprietor, declaring it to be a simple reparation
of an ancient injustice. Others were of opinion that such an act would
be inconsistent with the rights of property, since the dues paid by the
peasant were simply a form of rent for the use of the land. The subject
was submitted to a committee, who were instructed to report upon it at
the next assembly of the diet. Other committees were appointed to report
on the reform of the administration, on the education of the people, on
the liberty of the press, and on the national grievances.

“The same diet passed many laws renewing and confirming the ancient
laws, which established entire freedom of religious faith.

“Leopold, on closing the diet, renewed his assurances to the nation, of
his intention to govern according to the constitution. He did not live
long enough either to give proof of his sincerity, or to disappoint the
expectations of the nation. He died in February, 1792, and was followed
to the tomb by the deep regrets of his people.

“The moderation which he had shown in his short reign had done much to
appease the minds of his Hungarian subjects, and they were prepared to
receive his son and successor with very different feelings from those
with which they had looked forward to his own accession to the throne.
The first acts of the young prince seemed to justify their confidence.
He convened the diet at Buda within sixteen days after his father’s
death, and offered the assembled states the assurance of his intention
to respect their institutions and laws.

“‘I will myself,’ said he, ‘be the most diligent guardian of the
constitution. Rest assured that my will shall always be subjected to the
law, and that, in all my aims, I will be guided only by justice, honour,
and confidence in the Hungarian people.’[16]

“The royal propositions addressed to the diet confirmed the favourable
impressions with which the nation already regarded their young king. The
first two articles interpreted the diploma of the coronation in a manner
favourable to the constitution. The king then called the attention of
the diet to the subjects left undecided at their last meeting, and
concluded with a request for subsidies and the augmentation of the army.
The diet, eager to express its confidence in the sovereign, immediately
voted the increase of the army, and a subsidy of four millions to be
paid by the nobles. This done, they were proceeding to transact the
business of the nation, when the king suddenly dissolved the diet. The
most important affairs, and among them the contemplated reform, were
left uncompleted. He did not fail, however, to renew his promises of
governing according to the constitution:—

“‘I go from you richer than I came among you; but not by reason of the
subsidies I have received from you. These belong to the state, not to
me. That which I call my own, that in the possession of which I place my
happiness, is your affection. The kingdom I have received by
inheritance, but this love and mutual confidence is my own work and
yours. I will never cease from my sincere and zealous exertions for the
good of our common fatherland.... Bear to your fellow-citizens the
solemn assurance that, always mindful of my pledged faith, I will be the
true guardian and fulfiller of the laws.’[17]

“The diet was summoned again in November, 1796. The expenses of the war
with France forced the king to ask his Hungarian subjects for supplies.
On this occasion he dispensed with all circumlocution. The royal
propositions simply contained a demand for troops and money. In addition
to the subsidies which had been voted at the last diet, the Hungarians
had testified their affection for their young king by large voluntary
offerings. The sum of the contributions in money and produce, which had
in this way been furnished to the king since the last assembly of the
diet, amounted to more than fourteen millions of guldens.

“The diet of 1796 again acceded to the demands of the king. They granted
him large supplies in money, and fifty thousand recruits for the army,
on the condition that these should be incorporated only into Hungarian
regiments, and should be commanded by Hungarian officers. The diet had
trusted that, when they had fulfilled the wishes of the king, he would
show himself ready to listen to the ‘representations’ of the nation.
These expectations were disappointed. The diet was dissolved before any
thing had been done for the interests of the country. It was summoned
again in 1802. Peace had been declared; the hopes of the nation revived.
The king, in his opening speech, informed the diet that, peace being
established, he was now ready to advise with them on matters touching
the public welfare. He expressed his sense of the generosity of the
Hungarian nation, and assured them that the recollection of their
devotion would never be extinguished in his heart. ‘And now,’ said he,
‘that peace is concluded, I wish to bestow my cares on this country,
which, by its extent, its resources, and the noble character of the
people, is the chief bulwark of the empire.’ This was the preface to a
declaration that the royal treasury was empty, and that it concerned the
Hungarian honour that the crown should not be left without defence.
‘Peace,’ said he, ‘can be maintained only by a state of preparation for
war.’ The demands of the king were again granted, but no longer in the
same spirit of affection and loyalty as formerly. Distrust began to take
possession of the nation, as they saw their grievances unattended to,
and the most important reforms delayed. A number of measures which had
been discussed and accepted by the diet were prevented from passing into
law, for want of the royal sanction. The diet separated with a feeling
of deep dissatisfaction. The same scenes were repeated in the diets of
1805 and 1807. The confidence of the Hungarians in their king was
shaken, but appeals to Hungarian honour and loyalty had not yet lost
their effect upon them. They again voted the required supplies, again
presented their grievances, and again saw the consideration of them
deferred.

“But though the Hungarians had so little reason to place confidence in
their king, their loyalty was still capable of standing a severe proof.
Napoleon, who was aware that the war against France was very unpopular
in Hungary, and that great dissatisfaction prevailed in regard to the
Austrian policy, addressed a proclamation to the Hungarian nation (May,
1809.) He offered to establish them as an independent kingdom, if they
would withdraw their allegiance from the emperor of Austria, and assist
the French in the overthrow of that empire. But the high sense of honour
of the Hungarians shrank from what had the appearance of treason. It was
not in the season of danger that they would desert their king. The
proposals of Napoleon were rejected.

“The return of peace, in 1815, left the Hungarians at leisure to devote
themselves to the internal improvement of their country, and to
prosecute the reforms begun in 1790, of which the enlightened portion of
the nation felt more and more the necessity. The Hungarians had now
reason to expect some proof, on the part of their king, of that
affection and gratitude, of whose expression he had been so lavish in
the season of danger. But the return of peace gave the Austrian cabinet,
likewise, opportunity to unfold its plans. Francis, now feeling himself
firmly seated on his imperial throne, resolved thenceforth to reign in
Hungary without the assistance of the diet. The convention of this
assembly having been delayed beyond the prescribed time, the counties
addressed letters to the king, representing the urgent wants of the
nation, and declaring that the public welfare absolutely demanded the
convocation of the national assembly. These letters remained unanswered.
The circulars which the _congregations_, or county assemblies, addressed
to each other were seized and suppressed. While affairs were in this
position, the empire was threatened with new disturbances on the side of
Italy. It was necessary to strengthen the army and replenish the
treasury. As formerly, it is in Hungary that these supplies are to be
sought, but it is not, as formerly, by the free gift of the people that
they are to be furnished. The emperor, by the advice of his cabinet,
resolved to levy the required supplies by his own absolute authority.
There were not wanting in the royal council men who had courage and
firmness enough to oppose the opinion of the majority and the wishes of
the king. Német, who held the office of _Director causarum regalium_ in
Hungary, expressed himself with true Magyar frankness. He declared in
the royal presence, that the king would violate the constitution of
Hungary and his own royal oath, if he suffered himself to be led by his
Austrian counsellors to these rash and illegal measures. ‘Do you
forget,’ exclaimed the king, ‘that I am emperor and king, and that your
head is at my disposal?’ ‘I know it well,’ replied the Hungarian, ‘but
the liberty of my country and the honour of my king are dearer to me
than my life.’ The counsel of injustice and aggression prevailed. The
levying of recruits was ordered, and the increase of the impost to four
millions of florins. Hungary did not submit quietly to this invasion of
her rights. The counties refused compliance. Imperial commissioners were
then appointed, who were to carry into effect the royal commands. It was
in vain. The news spread rapidly through the country, and everywhere
excited the most lively indignation. All possible embarrassments were
thrown in the way of the commissioners. They could with great difficulty
obtain horses for their journeys. At their approach, the public
functionaries laid down their offices and disappeared. This passive
opposition was encountered everywhere. In some counties it took a yet
more decided character. In the end, Francis was forced to yield, as
Joseph had been; he had outraged the feelings of his subjects to no
purpose. However reluctantly, he found himself constrained to convene
the diet in 1825.

“At the opening of the diet Francis endeavoured, by a conciliatory
speech, to appease the resentments of the assembly. But the members were
not satisfied. They required the names of the traitors who had misled
the king by their counsels. One of the magnates being prosecuted for the
freedom of his expressions, all the deputies supported him, and declared
that he had expressed the sentiments of all. The prosecution was
withdrawn. The deputies then addressed to the king a representation of
the grievances of the nation. To the long list of ancient griefs were
now added the recent attempt to levy money without the consent of the
diet, and the acts of violence committed by the royal commissioners.
Francis, in his reply, began with reproving the deputies for bringing
forward their own grievances, before considering the royal proposition
on the subject of the impost. He declared that he would protect the
faithful subjects who had executed his will. At the same time, he
expressed regret for what had occurred, but justified it by the plea of
necessity. In conclusion, he left the question of the impost to the
decision of the diet. This body, before acceding to his demands,
required and obtained of the king a renewed confirmation of the
fundamental laws of the kingdom. He bound himself never more to raise
money without the concurrence of the diet, and engaged to convoke this
assembly every three years. On their part, the states voted to raise the
amount of the impost to four millions.

“The national assembly, dissolved in 1827, was to be convoked anew in
1830. This was not done without great reluctance on the part of the
Austrian cabinet, which perceived with apprehension the effect that the
events which took place in France in July of that year had produced on
the Hungarians. But it was necessary to raise subsidies; and it was no
time to revolt the minds of the people, at the moment when the country
was resounding with enthusiastic expressions of its sympathy with the
triumph, in a neighbouring state, of the cause of constitutional rights
over despotism. The diet was therefore convened. But the king, at the
same time, gave notice that, after a short session devoted to the
consideration of the most urgent affairs, it would be dissolved, to be
convened again the following year. The diet met on the 11th of
September. The king required the raising of recruits, and, the late
events having somewhat lessened his confidence in the success of
arbitrary measures, he accompanied his demand with all those flattering
expressions which the Austrian kings of Hungary were accustomed to
bestow so liberally on their subjects as often as they stood in need of
them, and which had but too much effect on a people highly sensitive on
the point of national honour, and devotedly loyal, whenever their duty
to their country did not come in collision with their deference for
their king. The diet acceded to the royal demands. It voted the
recruits, with the usual stipulation, that they should be placed in
Hungarian regiments, and should be commanded by Hungarian officers. The
king replied evasively, that the Hungarians should be placed in these
regiments, in preference to any other inhabitants of the empire. The
diet refused to vote for the raising of the recruits without some more
positive assurance. The emperor had recourse to the Palatine, and
desired him to use his personal influence to overcome the resistance of
the diet.

“The Archduke Joseph, called to the dignity of Palatine in 1796, at the
age of twenty, had filled his difficult post of mediator between the
king and the people with great discretion. If he had been the
independent king of Hungary, the nation might have found in him one of
the wisest and most patriotic of its princes, and, under the auspices of
an administration, prudent, and, at the same time, liberal, might have
followed, with sure steps, the path of political reform, and have taken,
once more, a high place among the powers of Europe. As it was, placed as
mediator between a people jealous of its liberties, and a sovereign
watchful for an occasion to subvert them,—a sovereign to whom he owed,
at the same time, the respect of a subject and the affection of a
brother,—Joseph was forced to guide himself by a system of compromises,
and, not unfrequently, to play on the generous feelings which he knew so
well how to excite. The Hungarians, on their part, knew, or believed,
that the regard which the Archduke Joseph had displayed for their
interests had lessened his favour with the imperial court. He had, then,
suffered for them. They repaid him with an enthusiastic affection, and
the Palatine not seldom won from their gratitude concessions which he
would in vain have expected from their compliance. On the present
occasion, called upon by the court for aid in an attempted encroachment
on the rights of Hungary, he felt that it was on this attachment for his
person that he could alone rely for success. He addressed the diet in a
speech skilfully framed, which concluded with these words:—‘Let, then,
the states, in remembrance of thirty-five years of services, of efforts
consecrated to this kingdom, which I proudly regard as my country, and
in consideration of my position as mediator between the king and the
nation,—let the states, I say, consent to show me some manifestation of
their gratitude, by withdrawing their motion.’ These words did not fail
of their intended effect. The recruits were voted; the condition was
withdrawn. In three days, the king dissolved the diet.

“But the nation was no longer to be trifled with. The necessity for
reform was, every day, more strongly and more extensively felt. The
interval between the dissolution of the diet of 1830 and the assembling
of that of 1832, was not lost by the patriots of Hungary. They employed
it in determining on the measures of reform to be introduced at the next
diet, and in concerting their plan of action. The condition of the
peasantry was felt to be the subject which most urgently demanded
attention. One of the most zealous advocates of the cause of the people
was found in Count Széchényi, one of the large landed proprietors of the
kingdom. He prepared the way for the reception of the question of the
emancipation of the peasantry, by a series of works, which had a great
effect in enlightening the public mind.

“The Austrian cabinet, in the mean time, had not been idle. Having been
reluctantly compelled to convene the diet, it took its own measures to
put a check on the designs of the liberal party. It gave orders to its
agents to leave no arts unemployed, and to spare no expense, to defeat
the election of the liberal candidates.[18] These efforts were vain. The
spirit of liberty and the virtue of the people resisted all attempts.
The chamber of deputies was almost wholly composed of liberal members.

“The Austrian cabinet, too prudent to enter into open contest with a
movement which was evidently becoming national, affected to adopt the
views of the liberal party, hoping, by an apparent and partial
acquiescence, to allay the excitement of the public mind, and to
restrain and direct a movement which it could not suppress. The royal
propositions, therefore, embodied some of the principal measures of
reform projected by the liberals. Among the most important of the
subjects to which the attention of the diet was called, were the
creation of the urbarial code, delayed since 1790, the reform of the
judiciary, and a more equitable division of the imposts.

“Notwithstanding the enthusiasm for liberty which pervaded the Hungarian
people, and the generous ardour with which her enlightened patriots
approached the work of reform, it is not to be supposed that measures,
involving important changes in the constitution of the country, were
passed without encountering opposition. This opposition sprang from two
very different sources. It arose, on the one hand, from the conservative
spirit of the elder magnates, old Magyar patriots, who regarded the
institutions of their country with a superstitious affection, and in
whose eyes it was a sacrilege to lay a finger on one stone of this
venerable edifice. The organ of this party, composed of men who had been
the patriots of twenty years before, and to whom it is impossible to
refuse our respect, was Dessewffy. ‘In my youth,’ cried the venerable
noble, ‘I defended my country against the usurpations of Austria; in my
old age, I will defend her against the ingratitude of her sons.’ The
other and more dangerous source of opposition which the plans of the
reform party encountered, arose from the influence of the Austrian
cabinet. This government, true to its constant principle, _Divide et
impera_, while it gave apparent countenance to one party, lent its real
support to the other. It was not ill pleased to see these impracticable
Hungarian magnates engaged in a contest for their institutions with
their own countrymen, and those forces divided which had hitherto been
concentrated in the defence of Hungarian nationality against Austrian
encroachment. Thus, while affecting to take the initiative in the
reforms contemplated by the liberal members of the diet, the Austrian
government opposed the success of these measures with all the weight of
its influence. It was no longer as in those times when the monarchs
found their interest in raising the condition of the common people. In
this nineteenth century, it is not the king who shields his prerogatives
against the encroachments of an ambitious nobility; it is king and
aristocracy who tremble together, before the advance of a new power,
which threatens them both with extinction.

“But the cause of liberty was not without its advocates in the upper
house. The younger magnates,[19] with the exception of those who held
places under the government, shared warmly in the liberal spirit of the
time, and, with the generous ardour of youth, were ready to make any
sacrifice which the welfare of their country demanded. At their head was
the noble Széchényi, who supported the cause of freedom and justice with
the double power of eloquence and reason. It was he who gave the first
blow to the peculiar privileges of the aristocratic class. He brought
forward a project for a suspension bridge between Pest and Buda. He
proposed that all who passed this bridge, whether peasant or noble,
should be subjected to the toll. This question assumed importance from
the principle involved in it. The exemption from all public charges was
one of the most cherished privileges of the nobles. It was a question in
which their pride was more concerned than their pecuniary interest.
Széchényi knew how to combat the pride of the Magyars by calling on
their generosity.

“‘Do you call it a privilege,’ said he, ‘to be debarred from
contributing to the advancement of your country? Is it a privilege to be
obliged to devote your wealth only to your own selfish gratification,
while your country languishes in perpetual poverty? Will you build
houses, and plant trees, and lay out walks through your grounds, while
the country has neither roads, nor public buildings, nor navigation, nor
commerce? After all, what is the question before you? Are you called to
sacrifice your constitution to a foreign power? No; it is yourselves who
are to pronounce the decision. The right to give ourselves laws, the
right to restrain our own liberties, is not that, in itself, the highest
liberty!’

“The measure was carried. The diet then proceeded to pass several other
laws, which touched yet more nearly the prerogatives of the aristocracy.
The constitutional right of the noble to be exempted from arrest, except
on a charge of high treason, was abolished. The judicial power was taken
from the lord of the manor. The peasant received the right of
instituting a suit against a noble, and even against his own manorial
lord. It was especially to the improvement of the peasantry that the
diet of 1832–36 devoted its energies. The right of free migration, which
had been repeatedly adjudged to the peasant by former diets, and had as
often fallen into disuse, was confirmed. The amount of land which he had
a right to hold for his own use was increased; the vexatious exactions,
known by the name of the little tithes, abolished; and the _robot_, or
soccage labour, reduced to fifty-two days in the year. The most
important measure was that which decreed to the peasant the right of
redeeming the _tized_ (tithes) and _robot_ (_corvées_ or soccage-work),
by means of contracts passed between him and the manorial proprietor,
and of thus becoming the owner of the soil he tilled.[20] In addition to
these important measures, the diet of 1832 passed several bills for
internal improvements. This diet was not, however, content with
providing only for the material wants of the country. The friends of
reform had long been desirous of establishing a system of public
instruction. They had repeatedly called the attention of the government
to this subject, but always without effect. The representations offered
by the present diet were not more successful. The education of the
people was too dangerous a power to be trusted in the hands of
reformers; and the Austrian cabinet, emboldened by the support of the
conservative party in the upper house, felt itself strong enough to
venture on open acts of opposition to the views of the liberal party.
This conduct of the government called forth the liveliest indignation in
the chamber of deputies.

“‘The government,’ said Bezerédy, ‘sins against its own conscience in
refusing to permit us to secure instruction to our children and our
fellow-countrymen. But patience has its limits. Let the government look
to its acts. Its conduct forces the nation to rely on itself. I call
upon you, then, I call upon the whole nation, to unite in paying to our
country this most necessary duty; to unite in fulfilling a sublime, a
holy work, that of elevating the people.’

“‘Let us thank the government,’ said Deák, ‘let us thank the government.
There are among us those who cherish, if not a full confidence, at least
a hope, that the government is not hostile to the welfare of our
country. But all the answers of the court have been calculated to dispel
these illusions. Let us, then, thank the government, for illusion is the
worst of evils. We ask of the government neither money nor counsel; we
make no attempt on the royal prerogative; we simply ask to be allowed to
frame a law for the moral and material development of the people. And
the government interferes to prevent us. But what will it gain by this
interference? In more than one heart will be planted the bitter
conviction, that the Austrian government dreads the prosperity of
Hungary, and labours to repress it. False calculations! Can there be
more short-sighted policy than to excite in us such bitter feelings, at
the very moment of the dissolution of the diet, that we may communicate
to our constituents these feelings, which will, in three years, again
animate the representatives of the country? It is not necessary to be a
prophet, to predict that this policy of the government will favour the
development of the national faculties more than all polytechnic
institutions.’

“The diet separated in May, 1836. The result of its labours fell short
of the wishes and plans of the reformers, yet they must be regarded as
having gained a signal victory. This victory was not achieved without
cost. Every triumph of truth and justice has had its martyrs.

“It was during the sitting of the diet of 1832–36, that the name of
Kossuth was heard for the first time. He attended the diet as scribe for
some of the deputies. He had learned the art of short-hand writing, in
order the better to qualify himself for making reports of the
discussions in the diet. These reports he lithographed and circulated as
a newspaper. The government declared the publication of the proceedings
of the diet in this way to be illegal.[21] Kossuth then organized a
society of young men, composed chiefly of the scribes who attended the
deputies; these copied the journal by hand, and it was then transmitted
to the subscribers through the post, in the form of a letter. These
letters were seized in the post-office, and destroyed. This infringement
of their rights only served to rouse the indignation of the people, and
to give celebrity to the journal. The papers were thenceforth carried by
the county messengers, and delivered at the doors of the subscribers.
After the closing of the diet, Kossuth continued to edit his journal,
giving, in the place of the deliberations of the diet, the discussions
in the county assemblies. This journal being interdicted by the
government, Kossuth made application to the county of Pest, and was
formally authorized to continue it.

“The censorship of the press has never existed by law in Hungary, but,
since the awakening of liberal ideas in that country, the Austrian
government has exercised a censorship of the most formidable kind. It
could not attack the publisher or author by process of law; but by a
sudden act of arbitrary power, it cut off from the world the utterer of
dangerous doctrines, and smothered his voice in the silence of the
dungeon. Since the beginning of the present century, not less than forty
Hungarian patriots had met this fate. It was thus that Kossuth was now
dealt with. He was seized in the middle of the night, and consigned to a
dungeon in Buda. The government arrested, at the same time, the leaders
of a debating society, formed by some young men, who met for the purpose
of political and literary discussions. Among these was Lovassy, a young
man of brilliant talents and an ardent patriot. When the amnesty of 1840
restored him to liberty, he was no longer to be recognized; the horrors
of the dungeon had deprived him of reason.

“Another victim of the vengeance of the government was the Baron
Wesselényi. This nobleman was born of a family which had already made
sacrifices to liberty. His ancestor, the Palatine, had defended the
liberties of Hungary against the encroachments of Leopold, and would
have lost his life on the scaffold, if he had not found refuge in
Transylvania. The father of Wesselényi had sustained in his castle, for
a whole day, the attack of a regiment of dragoons sent against him by
Joseph II. His mother was a noble woman, who early impressed on his mind
the principles of justice and benevolence. Wesselényi had long been an
object of fear to the Austrian government. He possessed large estates
both in Hungary and Transylvania; this gave him a right to sit in the
diet of both kingdoms.

“The Transylvanians, not less attached to their liberties than the
Hungarians, had seen them even more boldly infringed. The constitution
of that kingdom requires that the king shall summon the diet every year.
During the war with Napoleon, its convention had been suspended, and,
after the return of peace, the Austrian cabinet still continued to
govern the kingdom as a province of the empire. The dissatisfaction of
the people was great. They watched with deep interest the movements of
the patriots in the sister kingdom. They had seen these succeed in
forcing from the government the restoration of their political rights,
after a suspension of thirteen years. The news of the revolution of
July, in Paris, which seemed at that time an event full of good augury
for all who were engaged, whether openly or silently, in a struggle for
their rights, spread rapidly through the country, and added to the
popular excitement. It was then that Wesselényi appeared on the scene.
He was a man peculiarly fitted to guide and control a popular movement.
He possessed a vigorous intellect, improved by the highest degree of
cultivation, invincible firmness, and a disinterestedness which his
enemies have never impugned. He was not less endowed with all those
qualities which possess a peculiar influence over the popular mind. To
the prestige of high birth, he added the advantages of wealth, an
imposing person, and a captivating eloquence. He possessed Herculean
strength,—a gift held in high respect by a simple and martial
people,—and an intrepid, almost reckless courage, which shrank from no
form of danger, now leading him to brave the vengeance of a despotic
government, now to put off alone at midnight in a frail boat, to save
from the waters of the Danube the victims of an inundation.[22]
Wesselényi might as easily have roused the Szeklers and Magyars of
Transylvania to armed insurrection, as to a constitutional vindication
of their rights. But while he called them to action, he restrained their
enthusiasm within the bounds of law. He passed rapidly through the
country, haranguing the congregations. He turned the excitement and
unfixed purposes of the people to a single point. He brought the
different counties into communication with each other, and led them to
combine to demand the restoration of their political rights. The people
rose at his summons, and the counties unanimously demanded of the king
the convocation of the diet. The government did not venture to refuse
the demand. The convocation of the diet was proclaimed. Wesselényi had
gained a victory over the Austrian cabinet; but one which they would not
fail to make him expiate. With this ardent and fearless temper, he was
not long in offering them an occasion. During the diet of 1832–36, at
the time when the government was endeavouring, through its emissaries,
to misrepresent the views of the liberal party, and to excite the
jealousies and prejudices of the nobles in opposition to reform,
Wesselényi, in the county meeting of Szathmár, detailed and explained
the measures which were contemplated by the reform party. In the course
of his speech, he spoke bitterly of the injustice which the people
suffered from the privileges of the aristocracy, and the check which the
prosperity of the nation received from the policy of the government.
Some of his expressions were pronounced to be treasonable, and he was
condemned to three years’ imprisonment. It was immediately after his
noble exertions during the inundation, and while his name was on all
lips, that this decree was carried into execution. Three years’
imprisonment in an Austrian dungeon is a sentence whose terrors, in this
country, cannot be easily comprehended. On a vigorous frame and
energetic temperament, like Wesselényi’s, the damp and squalor of the
dungeon, the privation of light and air, seem to act even more
powerfully than on frailer and more elastic constitutions. In a year and
a half, their work was done on Wesselényi. The government had no longer
anything to apprehend from him. Blind and decrepit, he was permitted to
leave his dungeon, on parole, to repair to Gräfenberg. He was finally
released by the amnesty of 1840.

“‘It is with a noble serenity,’ says De Gerando, ‘that Wesselényi has
borne the persecutions which have followed him. Proscribed for many
years, broken by moral and physical pain, he has been able at length to
return to his country, and it is to her that, prematurely old through
suffering, he consecrates his last wishes and his last thoughts.’[23]

“The diet was again convened in 1839. The Austrian cabinet had returned
to its old policy. The royal propositions contained no allusion to the
topics which chiefly occupied the public mind. The royal speech at the
opening of the diet concluded with these words:—

“‘As we have no greater desire than to testify to you, by our entire
confidence, a love equal to that of our ancestors of glorious memory,
so, likewise, we do not doubt, in any manner, of the zeal of our
faithful states, nor of their eagerness to show themselves the worthy
sons of those who have assured to the Hungarians the reputation of a
generous nation. Among the subjects of which we shall treat with you,
there is one which has its guarantee in the noble Hungarian character,
since it tends to maintain the army in a condition worthy of its honour
and glory.’

“This prefaced, after the ancient fashion of the Austrian kings of
Hungary, a demand for subsidies.

“The first of the royal propositions demanded the reinforcement of the
army; the second, supplies for its support. The only point affecting the
interests of the country to which it called the attention of the diet,
was the regulation of the course of the Danube.

“The liberal party did not, however, lose ground in the diet of 1839.
Some new advantages were acquired for the peasant, and the privileges of
the nobles were still further retrenched. The diet was dissolved on the
3d of May, 1840. The government, convinced by the result of this diet,
of the strength of the liberal party, returned once more into the path
of concession. At the closing of the diet, an amnesty for political
offences was proclaimed. The prosecutions were stopped, and the
prisoners set at liberty. Among these was Kossuth. He left his dungeon,
with his bodily frame wasted and enfeebled, but with his mental
faculties unimpaired and his energy unsubdued. He was released in May,
1840. On the 12th of July, of the same year, appeared the first number
of the _Pesti Hirlap_. It was published by the bookseller Heckenast. The
name of the editor was concealed. Never, since the rise of periodical
literature, did journalist exercise such a power as that swayed by the
unknown editor of the _Pesti Hirlap_. He attacked wrong and injustice in
whatever quarter they showed themselves. He not only maintained a
contest with the government for the constitutional liberties of the
kingdom, but brought to light all malpractices which took place in the
administration of public affairs throughout the country. Abuses to which
the diet had in vain attempted to bring a remedy, fell before the
attacks of the _Pesti Hirlap_. The minute knowledge which the editor
displayed of the affairs of every part of the kingdom,—the vigilance
from which it seemed that nothing could be hid,—above all, his rigorous
justice,—inspired both admiration and fear, and gave a force to his
judgments which nothing could withstand. In six months after its first
publication, this journal numbered eleven thousand subscribers. These
were of all classes and of all races. It was sought with equal eagerness
by the Slaves and the Germans, as by the Magyars.

“But with the increased diffusion of liberal opinions, the opposition to
them strengthened, and was gradually assuming a more selfish character.
It became apparent that the advocates of reform would not be content
with merely removing the most flagrant abuses. When the untitled
nobility had laid down all the privileges which separated them from the
common people, it was not to be supposed that the nation would see with
indifference the enormous influence exerted in the state by a few
families.[24] Already some of the liberal party had recalled the fact
that the chamber of magnates was an innovation introduced under the
Austrian administration, and there were many indications that the titled
aristocracy would be called on to make some sacrifices in their turn.
Experience has shown, again and again, that men who are capable,
individually, of making the greatest sacrifices, become selfish and
tenacious as members of an order. The interests of the magnates of
Hungary, and those of the emperor of Austria, became every day more
closely intertwined. There were still, however, among them noble
examples of patriotism and disinterestedness. Széchényi was still true
to the principles of his youth. The name of Batthyányi has been already
consecrated by martyrdom.

“The diet was again convened for 1843. The Austrian cabinet had now
abandoned the idea of intimidation, and returned to the line of policy
it had adopted in 1832. The royal propositions called the attention of
the diet to some of the principal measures of reform demanded by the
liberal party. The charge of defeating them was left to the upper house.
The two parties in the state, that adverse and that favourable to
reform, were already known by the names of the government party and the
opposition. Among the opponents of reform were found all who held
offices by the appointment of the crown, and likewise—with regret it
must be spoken—the dignitaries of the Church, who gave their influence
and their votes constantly on the side of the Austrian government.
Meanwhile, the same means were put in requisition, as in the case of the
former diet, to defeat the election of the liberal candidates. Money was
not spared. All the influence of the government and of the conservative
magnates was called into exercise. But without effect. The voice of the
nation pronounced itself, with decision, for the liberal side. The party
of reform had, as before, a very large majority in the lower house. New
victories were obtained for the cause of freedom. The most important
measure which was passed during this session of the diet was that which
gave the peasant the right to become the possessor of landed property,
without restriction. The law of 1836 had given him the power of
acquiring the property of the land which he held as tenant, by means of
contracts between himself and the manorial lord. The act of 1843
permitted him to become the owner, by purchase, of noble property, as if
himself noble. The advocates of this bill took the ground, that, by
their ancient constitution, the peasant possessed this right, and that
it was but a revival and confirmation of a law already existing, though
long unrecognized. While this question was under debate, one of the
members proposed, as an amendment, that this right should be extended
only to such peasants as understood the Hungarian language; but he was
instantly reminded by his colleagues, that ‘the law gave all the
inhabitants of Hungary the title of Hungarians, and that all, having
equally shed their blood for the defence of the country, had a right to
share in the same advantages.’ The act was passed without any condition.
It was likewise carried in the upper house, where it owed its success
chiefly to the exertions of Count Széchényi.

“Another very important measure, which likewise originated at the second
table, was carried during the diet of 1843. This was a law by which all
public functions were rendered accessible to the non-nobles.

“The liberal party could not, however, yet succeed in obtaining the
passage of a law for the equal distribution of the taxes. It was in vain
that Széchényi exerted all his eloquence. The victory was still delayed.
But, in the mean time, in anticipation of the law, great numbers of the
liberal party caused themselves to be inscribed on the list of those
subject to taxation. ‘There is not a county,’ says De Gerando, ‘in which
the liberals have not, in crowds, given this proof of their
patriotism.’[25]

“The chamber of deputies attempted several other measures of reform,
which were lost through the opposition of the upper house. Among these
were, the abolition of the _aviticitas_, and the introduction of trial
by jury. The states likewise passed some decrees favourable to Hungarian
commerce;[26] these having, with some difficulty, passed the upper
house, were by the government ‘deferred to the next diet,’—a common
mode, with the Austrian cabinet, of disposing of measures to which it
does not venture to give a direct veto.

“The liberal members of the diet had not succeeded in carrying all their
measures, but, during the short time they had been in session, they had
rendered great service to the country, and they were confident of
obtaining yet greater victories at the next convention of the national
assembly, which was to take place in 1847.

“The government in 1845, finding all its attempts to arrest the progress
of the liberal party unsuccessful, resolved to renew the attempt which
had been made in the time of Joseph, and attack the liberty of Hungary
in its very stronghold,—the municipal governments. Hungary has been,
from the earliest times, divided into counties, each of which possesses
an independent administration; so that the kingdom may be said to be
composed of a number of small states, united by a federal compact, and
represented, by their deputies, in the general diet of the nation. Each
of these counties is presided over by a Föispán, or supreme count, who
is usually one of the large landed proprietors of the county. Under him
is an Alispán (Viscount), on whom the principal business of the county
devolves. The salaries of these officers are, on the true republican
principle, very moderate. The honour of serving the country is regarded
as sufficient recompence. The law provides, that, in case of neglect of
duty on the part of the Föispán, the king may, _at the instance of the
county_, oblige him to resign his office into the hands of an
administrator, to be named by the king. The government made the absence
of some of these magistrates from the counties over which they presided
the pretext for a general displacement. This was done without the
consent of the counties, and even in cases where the Föispán had
resigned his other offices for the purpose of devoting himself to the
affairs of his county. The new administrators brought with them a
complete set of under officers, and, instead of receiving the moderate
stipend awarded by the county to its chief magistrate, had very large
salaries from the Austrian government. It was the intention of the
cabinet, by this illegal measure, to overrule the elections, as it had
already done in Croatia.[27] The appointment of these administrators
excited an indignation, which their conduct did not tend to allay. It
was in vain, however, that the counties presented remonstrances to the
king against the mal-administration of these functionaries. All
complaints were disregarded, and this new encroachment on their rights
was added to the list of grievances for whose redress the nation was to
combat at the next meeting of the diet.

“In June, 1847, the opposition party issued a programme of the measures
which they intended to advocate at the next meeting of the diet. They
begin with declaring that, in giving their opposition or their support,
they shall have regard, not to persons, but to acts; that they shall
disapprove of those acts of the government only which are, in their form
or their essence, illegal, or which are calculated to affect injuriously
the interests of the country. They proceed to recount some of the most
serious of the long-neglected grievances of the nation:—

“‘Our heavy grievances, so many times exposed, after a long course of
years, in which we have asked, urged, waited, have remained even to this
day without a remedy. They have become more bitter, because our
legitimate complaints, so often heard, have never produced any result.
It is for this reason that confidence and hope begin to fail.

“‘In the mass of our grievances there are some on which the opinion of
the whole nation is unanimous, including the men who are now members of
the Hungarian government. Nevertheless, the government does not seek to
remedy the evil; we cannot see, on their part, any intention of
relieving it.... In addition to our complaints of long standing, we find
new grievances in recent acts of the government. We have no need to
relate them in full; the public consultations of the counties, their
representations and their circulars, have already fully exposed and
registered them.... In this alarming situation of our country, we must
strive to increase and strengthen the legal guarantees of our
constitutional existence. We regard the responsibility of the government
as one of these guarantees. This belongs to the very nature of
constitutional government, and will form the best defence of the
Hungarian government against the pernicious influence of foreign
elements.

“‘Among the constitutional guarantees we count publicity. This we will
maintain, with all our force, in regard to every branch of public life.
We regard as a constitutional guarantee, and as a necessary means to our
future national development, the liberty of the press, limited by
suitable laws. We shall therefore insist upon the abolition of the
censorship, which has been introduced contrary to law.

“‘We regard it as legal, equitable, and as important for the increase of
the national strength and the security of our independence, that
Transylvania and Hungary should be fully and legally united; that the
two nations may be restored to each other, and the claims of kindred and
the long-expressed wishes of both countries satisfied.

“‘But we shall not regard our mission as accomplished when we have
fortified the guarantees of our constitutional existence. We believe
ourselves called to labour continually for the accomplishment of all
just reforms. We therefore resolutely declare, that we shall remain, for
the future, on the ground on which the history of the last years has
made the name of opposition synonymous with that of reform....

“‘In conformity with all that precedes, while we regard it as our
indispensable duty to guard the right of the initiative, we also hold it
our duty openly and clearly to point out the principal questions whose
prompt solution we believe necessary for the good of the country:—

  “‘1. The equal distribution of the public burdens. We regard it as our
  principal duty to lighten the burdens of the people, who have hitherto
  been alone subjected to taxation. We wish in this respect, also, to
  strengthen our constitutional guarantees. We desire that the diet
  should decide as to the disposition of the impost.

  “‘2. Participation of the non-nobles, of the inhabitants of the royal
  cities, and of the free districts, in legislative and municipal
  rights.[28]

  “‘3. Equality before the law.

  “‘4. The abolition of the urbarial dues, with indemnity to the landed
  proprietors. We think it desirable that steps should be taken to
  render the redemption of these universal, through the assistance of
  the state.

  “‘5. Security given to credit and property by the abolition of the
  _aviticitas_.


“‘We shall labour strenuously to call into life all that can tend to the
material and intellectual development of the country. We shall endeavour
to give to popular education, that powerful engine of national
development, such a direction as shall form able and patriotic citizens,
that the people may, by this means, likewise attain to personal
independence....

“‘While labouring for the accomplishment of these ends, we shall never
forget the relations which, by the terms of the Pragmatic Sanction,
exist between Hungary and the hereditary states of Austria. But at the
same time, we shall hold fast to the tenth article of 1790, by which the
royal word, sanctified by an oath, guaranteed to our nation that Hungary
is a free country, independent in its whole system of legislation and of
administration, and that it is not subordinate to any other country.’

“The events which took place in France and Austria in the spring of 1848
gave to the cause of liberal principles a speedier triumph than its
advocates had anticipated for it. Ferdinand, in the midst of a crumbling
empire, was in no condition to refuse the demands of his people.
Immediately after the revolution of the 13th of March in Vienna, the
opposition party in Hungary issued a proclamation, headed, ‘_Mit kiván a
magyar nemzet?_’—‘What asks the Magyar nation?’

“This manifesto sets forth twelve points of reform:—

  “‘1. We ask freedom of the press, and the abolition of the censorship.

  “‘2. A responsible ministry at Buda.

  “‘3. Annual diet at Pest.

  “‘4. Equality before the law, both as regards religious and civil
  rights.

  “‘5. A national guard.

  “‘6. An equal distribution of the public burdens.

  “‘7. Abolition of the urbarial relations.

  “‘8. Trial by jury.

  “‘9. Representation on the principle of equality.

  “‘10. A national bank.

  “‘11. The army shall be required to take the oath to the constitution;
  the Magyar troops shall not be taken out of the country; the foreign
  troops shall be withdrawn.

  “‘12. Union with Transylvania.’[29]

“To these articles, at the suggestion of Vahot, was added, the release
of prisoners confined for political offences.[30]

“It is to be observed that these demands for equality before the law,
and an equal distribution of the taxes, were not made by those who
suffered by the existing injustice,—until these reforms were carried,
these had no voice in any public matter,—but by the very persons whose
privileges were to be abrogated.

“These measures of reform were rapidly passed by the diet. A deputation
of Hungarian nobles then proceeded to Vienna, to lay them before the
king, and obtain his sanction.

“On the 19th of March, placards, affixed to the walls of Pest, announced
to the people that the royal assent to their demands had been obtained.
A copy of a letter was given, addressed by the Palatine to Count
Batthyányi, empowering him to form the long-desired Hungarian ministry.
This announcement seemed to give the final pledge of the reality and
permanence of their newly gained freedom. The people were satisfied.
They had never had any other desire than to live quietly under just and
equal laws. They believed their end accomplished. A partaker in the
scenes of the 15th to the 19th of March, writing while the hopes of the
people were still fresh, and before they had even a foreboding of the
terrible disenchantment which was to follow, speaks thus:—

“‘That which in Italy has cost streams of blood, that to which, in
France, hundreds and hundreds of men fell as sin-offerings, that which
Germany must buy with blood, and again blood,—that have we Hungarians,
who have been decried, through all Europe, as a seditious, lawless,
turbulent people, gained without any disturbance of the public order.
Our victory was no victory of force, but a victory of right,—a victory
of intelligence. Our revolution was a revolution against disorder, to
obtain the highest good of a free people,—order.’[31]

“Another eyewitness thus describes the effect produced on the people of
Pest by the announcement of the royal assent:—

“‘It would be impossible to describe the joy which everywhere manifested
itself. With deeply penetrated, devout hearts, we hastened to the
church, to give thanks to the Omnipotent for this speedy bloodless
accomplishment of our transformation. The church, when we entered, was
filled with people, the sight of whose deep, enthusiastic devotion
elevated the heart with a sublime feeling. When we left the church, I
felt as if newly born, newly baptized.’[32]

“But this apparent triumph of their rights did but hasten the crisis
which Austria had been for years preparing for the Hungarian nation.[33]
While they were returning thanks to God for their freedom, redeemed
without blood, Jellachich was receiving his orders from the Austrian
cabinet.

“On the 24th of March, only five days after the date of the letter to
Count Batthyányi, which had excited so much joy and gratitude among the
people, the Palatine Stephen, son of the old, beloved Palatine Joseph,
and who was himself possessed of the affection and confidence of the
Hungarian people, addressed to the emperor a letter, in which he set
forth the ‘three measures’ through which ‘alone’ he ‘hoped to accomplish
anything in Hungary.’

“The first measure was to withdraw all the military force from the
country, and to ‘abandon it to entire devastation,’ (dieses der
gänzlichen Verwüstung zu überlassen,) to ‘pillage and fire,’ while the
government was to look passively on. The second measure was to make an
attempt upon Count Batthyányi, the President of the Hungarian ministry,
and, through his means, ‘to save all that is to be saved.’ The third
measure was to recall the Palatine, and to send a royal commissioner,
invested with extraordinary powers, with a considerable armed force, to
Presburg, who should repair to Pest, after the dissolution of the diet,
and there carry on the government with a strong hand, in such a manner
as circumstances may require.’[34] The Austrian cabinet adopted each of
these measures in turn. The first was already in progress of
preparation. Until their plans were matured for carrying the third into
execution, it was necessary still to temporize. The good faith of the
Hungarian ministry was not to be tampered with, but their credulity
might be practised upon. They were, for a time, not less deceived than
the rest of the nation.

“On the 11th of April, Ferdinand gave in person, at Presburg, his solemn
sanction to the laws which had been promulgated in March. On the 10th of
the following month, he issued a proclamation, addressed to the
rebellious Croats and Servians, in which Jellachich was denounced as a
traitor, and deprived of his banship, and all his military employments.
In this proclamation, Ferdinand himself exposes the futility of the
accusations which had been brought against the Hungarians as oppressors
of the other races. He upbraids the rebels with their treason, in the
following terms:—

“‘We have been deceived in you,—in you, Croats and Slavonians, who, for
eight hundred years, under the same crown, sharing the destinies of
Hungary, _have owed to this bond the constitutional freedom which you
alone, among all Slavonian people, have been through a course of
centuries in a condition to retain_.

“‘We find ourselves deceived in you,—_you, who have not only always
shared equally in all the rights and privileges of the Hungarian
constitution_, but also, by the favour of our illustrious ancestors, in
reward of your spotless fidelity, have been invested with greater
privileges than any other subjects of our sacred Hungarian crown.

“‘We have been deceived in you to whom the last diet of Hungary and its
dependent states granted, agreeably to our royal will, a brotherly share
in all the benefits of constitutional freedom and equality before the
law. The right of constitutional representation has, with you, as in
Hungary, been extended to the people, so that not only the nobility, but
also the other inhabitants, and the frontier regiments, through their
deputies, may take part, as well in the general legislation as also in
your municipal assemblies, and thus you yourselves, through your own
immediate action, can forward your own prosperity. Hitherto the noble
has had little share in the public burdens; henceforward the uniform
distribution of the same among all the inhabitants, without distinction
of class, is established by law, and thereby an oppressive burden has
been taken from your shoulders.

“‘Your nationality and municipal rights, in regard to which an attempt
has been made, by malicious, false reports, to inspire you with
apprehensions, are not in any way threatened; on the contrary, they have
been extended and strengthened, secured against all attacks; for _the
use of your mother tongue has not only been secured to you by law in
your schools and churches, for all future time, but has also been
introduced into your public assemblies, in place of the Latin, hitherto
in use_.

“‘Calumniators have endeavoured to persuade you that the Hungarian
nation wishes to suppress your language, or to hinder its further
development. _We ourselves assure you these reports are entirely false._

“‘_For eight hundred years have you been united with Hungary; during all
this time, the legislature has acted with a regard to your nationality;
how could you, then, believe that this same legislature would now show
itself hostile to your mother tongue, which it has protected for eight
hundred years?..._

“‘The law is holy, and must be holy. _We have sworn by the living God,
that we will preserve the integrity of our Hungarian crown, that we will
maintain and obey the constitution and the laws, and cause others to
obey them._’

“This proclamation had the effect of confirming the Hungarians in their
false security. It had no other effect. Jellachich continued to raise
troops, and complete his preparations for the invasion of Hungary. The
other agents of Austria in Southern Hungary incited the peasants with
the hope of the rich plunder of the Hungarian towns and villages. The
work of devastation began immediately after the promulgation of this
edict.

“On the opening of the diet, on the 5th of July, the Palatine, in the
name of the king, expressed his reprobation of the rebels in Croatia and
Slavonia, who, as he said, had even dared to use the royal name, and to
resist the laws under the pretext that they were not the free expression
of the royal will. He assured them that it was his majesty’s desire that
the representatives of the nation should consider it their first duty to
take the necessary measures for restoring the tranquillity of the
country, for preserving the integrity of the Hungarian kingdom, and for
maintaining the sacred inviolability of the law. With this view, he
recommended them to bestow their earliest attention _on the defence of
the country and the state of the finances_. He declared that the king
regarded with signal displeasure the audacious conduct of those who had
ventured to assert that any act of disobedience to the law could be
pleasing to his Majesty.

“In the mean time the southern provinces of Hungary were already a prey
to fire and massacre,[35] while the Austrian generals looked quietly on.
It was not until the 11th of July, that the nation was roused to a sense
of its danger, and, on the motion of Kossuth, ordered a levy of men to
defend the country against invasion.

“In August, the Austrian cabinet threw off the mask: the imperial troops
began to march towards Zágráb, and to place themselves under the command
of Jellachich. In their reply to the remonstrances of the Hungarian
diet, the ministry at Vienna now spoke openly of the Croatian and
Servian rebels as the brothers in arms of the imperial army.

“On the 4th of September, the emperor addressed a letter to the same
Jellachich whom, not two months before, he had denounced as a traitor,
in which he speaks of the ‘_indubitable proofs of fidelity and
attachment which the Freiherr von Jellachich had repeatedly displayed
since he has been named Ban of Croatia_.’

“The Hungarians made yet one more attempt to avoid an open collision
with the Austrian government. On the 9th of September, a deputation of
one hundred and sixty Hungarians, at whose head was Pazmandy, the
president of the chamber of deputies, repaired to Vienna, to entreat the
emperor of Austria to show himself the king of Hungary, and ‘to
contribute to the rescue of the fatherland by throwing the weight of his
royal authority into the scale.’ The king drew from his pocket a written
paper, and read them, in an indifferent voice, a cold and evasive
answer.

“The deputation returned to Pest, to announce to the Hungarian people,
that they were to rely only on themselves. On the same day, Jellachich,
at the head of the imperial forces, passed the Drave.

“It was thus that the war between Hungary and Austria began. From this
period, the eyes of the world have been turned upon Hungary. Our readers
have yet fresh in their recollection the scene of this war, in which the
Hungarians extorted admiration even from their enemies. It is not our
intention to retrace them here. We have designed only, in this rapid
sketch, to place in a condensed form before those of our readers who had
not, previous to the breaking out of the late contest, directed their
attention towards Hungary, such a statement of the antecedent relations
of that country with Austria as shall enable them to form an equitable
judgment of the events of which they have been witness, and of those
which the next decade is to develop.”

                                                                  M.L.P.

It may seem remarkable, that the History of the Crimes of the House of
Austria should be closed just with the stirring up a war, which
concentrates and epitomizes all the crimes of five hundred years,
against a virtue, which, for eight hundred years, had been one long
struggle for the development of the noblest constitution of the Eastern
Continent, a Constitution thirteen times all but overthrown by despots,
and thirteen times reinstated by the patriotic energy of its liberty and
law-loving people.

But the object of this compilation is especially to show, that the
Austrian house has been acting, in the war of Hungary, wholly according
to its nature; for that its whole conduct from Rodolph downwards, with
reference not merely to Hungary, but to every nation and province of a
nation, with which it has come into contact, demonstrates, that it is an
enemy to all international law which deserves the name of _Public
Right_; and imperatively calls upon all constitutional nations, in
self-defence, or, at least in defence of the principle which is their
strength, to withdraw from it their support and countenance.

It would be unjust to give less than a volume to the history of this
war; a war unrivalled since the days, when Athens and Sparta, at the
gate of Europe, stemmed the millions of Asia, that were threatening to
overwhelm the only spot on Earth, where Freedom was self-conscious and
intelligent.

Indeed, the historian cannot fail to see a certain parallel between this
crisis of the world’s history, and that culminating point of antiquity,
the world-renowned, time-honoured Persian war. For more than two
thousand years had Syria, Babylon, Media, Nineveh, Egypt, Ethiopia and
Persia been developing every resource of the gardens of the world, from
the banks of the Nile to the Indus; and they had formed a commercial
web[36] of power and wealth, which stretched from China (the ancient
Serica) in the East, to the Gulf of Guinea, along the North of Africa to
Spain, and thence coastwise to Britain on the West, and concentrated in
their great capitals the material resources of the Earth, as may be
discerned, with the eyes of the present day, upon the monuments that yet
remain to astonish us by their colossal proportions, and their
historical memorials, and by the gem cylinders, whose date seems as
endless as their influence was deep.[37] At the end of the sixth century
before Christ, those vast regions had been centralized by the military
genius of Cyrus, and the administrative skill more than the military
genius of Darius Hystaspes, so that all their productions, and their
inhabitants, with all their time and labour, physical strength and
genius, were at his personal command.[38]

At the same period, on the borders of this mighty empire, was a small
state, not so large in area as the State of Rhode Island, in which dwelt
a people, rich only in ideas, but ideas that had cherished the instinct
of liberty into a divine inspiration; for it had lifted them into the
conception and faith, that intelligences finer than could be discerned
with the gross material organs, and purer than could be brought into
circumscription by the material forces with which men make war, were
allied to them, and had received into their august companionship
Hercules and Theseus, their heroes of labour and patriotism, and would
not suffer Greeks to admit as equals, but empowered them to despise as
barbarians, all who bore the form of men but had debased themselves from
the stature of manliness, by slaving for another man, although he did
command the material resources of the Universe.

The Persian power had not spared in its rapacity a few little commercial
colonies which shared the blood and culture of Athens; but indirectly,
through its victory over Crœsus, who was Grecian by culture if not by
race, had made them also tributary, and included them in its centralised
empire. A word from these colonies to Athens, intimating that it was
neither pious nor Hellenic to allow a barbarian to lord it over a
kindred people, with identical gods,—was enough to rouse up that little
state, which had just developed the old free constitution of Theseus
into Solon’s republic, by the expulsion of the Pisistratidae,—and it
rose, on the principle of a fraternity, and attacked “the Great King;”
provoking his vengeance and risking in self-respect, the worst he could
do.

And when he did do his worst, and poured upon the devoted little state
his hundreds of thousands, did it flinch? No! but strong in their gods,
strong by the shade of Theseus,[39] whom, with the creative enthusiasm
of a faith deeper than sense, and which raised the spiritual vision
above the material, they saw visibly marshalling their bands, their ten
thousand met and vanquished the hundred and ten thousand Persians in the
one great battle of Marathon. And again, after ten years of rest from
that defeat, when Darius’s son led up his million (not a man less,[40])
was it not able to raise the sister states to intervene, on the mere
principle that spiritual was not to be submitted to material forces? And
were not three hundred allies found who could deliberately choose to die
on the nation’s threshold as the barbarian was about to cross it, for
the mere purpose of showing him the difference between the owners of a
Penates-guarded homestead, and the bond-servants of a despot under whom
no homestead was sacred? And even when their little country was
desolated, and their city burned, the temples of their gods not spared,
and although no miraculous interposition had saved these consecrated
places, did their faith and confidence falter? Did they not rather rally
on the sea, still confiding in the oracles of their god, which echoed
the sentiment of their own hearts, that themselves, without a foot of
land on the earth, were Athens? And thus inspired, did they not vanquish
a fleet three times as great as their own, a fleet in which were the
mariners of Phœnicia? And when, after a winter’s rest, the selected
three hundred thousand bravest of that invading million came down for
another attack, led by the greatest captain of his nation, did not all
the worshippers of the Grecian Olympus (where was embodied to their
imaginations every distinctively human attribute, and the moral harmony
of the Universe itself, as Phœbus Apollo) rally, presenting indeed
numerically but one third the force, but, by that which was within,
outmeasuring a thousand times the Persian three hundred thousand? And
almost at the first blow did they not destroy it, so that scarce one was
left to go home and tell the tale? Were they satisfied with even this?
Did not another twenty years of unwavering action on the same principle,
by land and sea, end with a complete victory, in which the son of the
victor of Marathon, having ended the war ten years before, by the battle
of the Eurymedon, dictated to the great king a peace, whose articles
bore that no Persian should come within thirty miles of the Grecian
seas, and that the colonies of the Greeks on the Asiatic coast should be
free and self-governed?

So was it of old, with a nation whose gods were no greater or more
beautiful than their own best thoughts, but just as great and just as
beautiful as those best thoughts believed in and allowed to carry them
whither they would,—which is the secret of the whole wonderful history.
More than two thousand years have passed by, and we behold the material
wealth and power of Europe combined against a nation, which bears to the
Holy Alliance the same relation that Greece bore to Darius Hystaspes.

Hungary combines in this modern time the cause of both Ionia and Athens,
and Nicholas of Russia leads the conservative nations against her, like
Darius of old. Single-handed, has she already done battle on a hundred
Marathons. There is nothing more wonderful in human history than Hungary
in 1849 retreating into the heart of her own dominion, while the armies
of Russia and Austria, with the Serbs and Croats which the latter power
had infuriated to join them, form the cordon round Hungary, contracting
it every day, and crowding the nation nearer to each other, like a troop
of hunters who are driving in to the death of their game. The Hungarians
stand back to back, facing the foe all round, determined to shed their
last blood rather than yield their right to national independence. But
this is not all. In that devoted phalanx, which, unlike the phalanx of
old, is a circle bristling round its whole circumference and threatening
death to the hundred thousands who menace it, is an angel of life. He
bears a silver trumpet, through which he speaks, and the ringing music
turns the statues of men into statues of the soul. They are no longer
vulgar flesh and blood; they are transfigured with the spirit of liberty
and law. At the word of command, they start into action. The iron circle
breaks: North, South, East, West, shoot forth thousands to their
work.[41] They break the contracting cordon that was pressing them in,
though it were deep by tens of thousands of the paid soldiers of
despotism, and they return on their steps; and they sweep from their
native land the invaders, till hardly a foot of an enemy is left to
profane the holy ground:

               Aye call it holy ground!
                 The spot whereon they trod—
               They keep unstained what there they found—
                 Freedom to worship God.

A second time in the world’s history have spirit and matter met on the
battle-field, at fearful apparent odds,—and spirit triumphed!

Sparta was not at Marathon. She was wisely at home, performing the holy
rites that had been handed down through noble generations, and
consecrating laws which guarded liberty. But she came up, when Marathon
was won, to rejoice in the victory, and to pledge her future
coöperation. Nobly was the pledge redeemed at Thermopylæ and at Platæa.

But where was Hungary’s Sparta, even when the vanquished enemy rallied
in still greater numbers and again stormed in upon her? Did not the
Earth contain an older republic, “the model republic,” that might send a
new Leonidas with some devoted “three hundred” out of whose bosoms
should go a fire that should pass with lightning quickness through the
golden linked chain of despotism which binds the Holy Alliance together,
and make it a rope of ashes? And if it were not enough to show the Czar
of Russia a new Thermopylæ, to rally to a new Salamis and a new Platæa?

-----

Footnote 1:

  For the theory of the Catholic Church, whatever may be its practice,
  is that all men are born into it. It asserts a right over every child
  who sees the light where it is acknowledged: consequently he who bound
  himself to serve the Church at that time bound himself to serve
  humanity, at least within the precincts over which the Church extended
  its authority. For three hundred years after this time the people of
  Europe was considered to be _The Church_.

Footnote 2:

  The legend of WILLIAM TELL gives the spirit of the whole.

Footnote 3:

  Blanch, the first wife of Rodolph, died in April, 1305.

Footnote 4:

  Pelzel, p. 731–742. Several native and Catholic writers endeavour to
  extenuate the cruelty of Ferdinand, by declaring that he was with
  difficulty induced to make these dreadful examples; and was overborne
  by the representations of his ministers and the Jesuits. Admitting
  this fact, it is no exculpation of his conduct to assert that he acted
  unjustly by the advice of his ministers. But the preceding and
  subsequent transactions, as well as the general character, the
  relentless disposition, and the deep-rooted prejudices of Ferdinand,
  furnish ample evidence that he wanted no external impulse to commit
  acts of persecution and cruelty against the Protestants.

Footnote 5:

  Schiller’s Thirty Years’ War.

Footnote 6:

  Coxe, Chap. XXCIV.

Footnote 7:

  Coleridge has well defined Christianity to be “the perfection of
  Reason.”

Footnote 8:

  The accounts given, by their own writers, of the ancient Magyars,
  recall forcibly the description given by Sallust of the manners of the
  Romans in the first years of the Republic.

Footnote 9:

  Sancti Stephani Regis Decretum I. cap. IV.

Footnote 10:

  Sanct. Stephan. Decret. I. cap. X.

Footnote 11:

  Respublica et Status Regni Hungariæ.

Footnote 12:

  See the representations of the grievances of the Hungarian nation made
  by the diets of 1559 and 1563. See also the letter addressed by the
  Bishop of Colócza to Joseph I., through Baron Scalvinioni, 1703.—The
  manifesto of Prince Rakóczy, 1703.—Memoirs of Prince Rakóczy, by
  himself, 1739.

Footnote 13:

  See Fessler, _Die Geschichten der Ungern_.

Footnote 14:

  A very valuable work, written by a Hungarian, in the French language,
  published in 1739. The Hungarians commonly write in French, German, or
  Latin, when they desire to give their works a European circulation. In
  the eighteenth century, prior to the time of Maria Theresa, they used
  French in preference to German.

Footnote 15:

  “For,” says the Hungarian historian, Fessler, “the highest enthusiasm
  is only strong in deeds, not rich in words.”

Footnote 16:

  Fessler, _Die Geschichten der Ungern_, 10ter Bd., S. 658.

Footnote 17:

  _Ibid._, 10ter Bd., S. 660.

Footnote 18:

  See De Gerando, _De l’Esprit Public_, p. 174, for the account of the
  elections in the county of Bars.

Footnote 19:

  The diet of Hungary is composed of two chambers, or “tables,” as they
  are there called.

  At the first table sit the dignitaries of the church and the state,
  and the titled nobility, or magnates. This table is presided over by
  the Palatine.

  The second table is composed of the deputies of the counties. Each
  county sends two deputies. The royal cities, and certain chapters and
  privileged districts, send also their deputies to the diet. These,
  however, before the extension of representation in 1848, had but one
  collective vote. Croatia sent three deputies to the diet, one of which
  sat in the upper and two in the lower house. The chamber of magnates
  did not form a part of the ancient constitution of Hungary. Before the
  accession of the Archdukes of Austria, the diets were held in the open
  air, and all the noble inhabitants of the country had a right to be
  present at them, and take part in the deliberations. The foreign
  government found its account in raising up a class whose interests
  were separated from those of the main body of the nation. The “second
  table,” or chamber of deputies, is still called, by distinction, “the
  States.” The initiative belongs to the king and the second table of
  the diet. The deputies are bound to vote according to the instruction
  of their constituents, and can be recalled if they fail to satisfy
  them.

Footnote 20:

  Many proprietors had already made contracts of this kind with their
  peasants, though the only security for their fulfilment was the good
  faith of the parties.

Footnote 21:

  It was of great importance to the government to prevent the
  publication of the debates in the diet. Every art was put in practice
  by the Austrian cabinet, to deceive the people in regard to the views
  of the opposition party. Emissaries were employed to diffuse among the
  peasantry an impression that the nobles were unfriendly to their
  interests, and prevented the benefits which their ‘good father, the
  emperor,’ wished to bestow on them. Nothing could tend more
  effectually to disabuse them, than giving publicity to the proceedings
  of the diet.

Footnote 22:

  During the terrible inundation which took place on the breaking up of
  the ice in the Danube, in 1838, it is said that Wesselényi saved the
  lives of not less than two hundred persons. He remained on the river
  for several days and nights, in an open boat, in continual danger from
  the masses of ice which were floating down the river.

Footnote 23:

  _La Transylvanie._

Footnote 24:

  Every member of a magnate family, after he has attained the age of
  twenty-four, has a right to a seat at the first table of the diet.—De
  Gerando.

Footnote 25:

  Bezerédy was one of the first to set this honorable example. The
  following letter, addressed to him by the peasants of the village of
  Bitske in the county of Fejér, dated April 5, 1845, will give an idea
  of the character of the Hungarian peasantry, and the feeling which
  subsists between them and the nobles. In this country, the great
  majority of the inhabitants are of the Magyar race.

  “The patriotic act by which, faithful to holy and eternal justice, you
  have been the first to renounce the right of exemption from
  taxation,—this act, truly worthy of a noble, has already, to the
  honour of our aristocracy be it said, found many imitators. Those who
  have followed your example have made the most worthy recognition of
  your action. We also, who believe that, in taking part in our burdens,
  you have not lowered yourself to our level, but have raised us to
  yourselves, all regard it as a sacred duty to express to you our
  ardent gratitude for this noble sacrifice, which opens a new era to
  our country. May God grant, for the glory of the country and for our
  happiness, that your life may be long, and that your spirit may
  inspire the whole world.”

Footnote 26:

  Very severe restrictions were imposed by Austria on Hungarian
  commerce.

Footnote 27:

  Kossuth, in March, 1845, soon after this arbitrary act of government
  was carried into effect, addressed the county of Pest in a speech in
  which he pointed out all the dangers to the country which were
  involved in this measure, and all the evils which must result, and
  which actually did afterwards result, from it. We have not room for
  this speech. We give the opening and closing passages.

  “Although the future of our country appears to me covered by a dark
  veil, I cannot deny that the hope of a better destiny has sometimes
  beamed before my eyes. One of these moments of illusion presented
  itself when the government seemed ready to unite in our views, and to
  walk with us on the path of progress which had been smoothed by our
  efforts; when it seemed to offer us its assistance in repairing the
  faults of our fathers, and raising the people from their sad
  condition. We were then ready to banish the remembrance of three
  centuries of sorrow, and to give ourselves to the labours which were
  to replace this mournful but sacred struggle in which we had been
  engaged for the defence of our rights and our liberties. Alas! the
  illusion quickly vanished, and we found ourselves still alone on the
  path of progress. One step more and the struggle recommenced. So be it
  then; those who were ready to reconcile themselves with power will
  again defend their rights as men and citizens....

  “It has been said,—what has not been said to justify the
  government?—that order rendered these illegal measures necessary.
  Order! I do not know a word of which despotism has made a more
  insolent abuse. It is in the name of order that Nicholas has effaced
  Poland from the rank of nations, and that king Ernest has annihilated
  the constitution of Hanover. It was in the name of order that Philip
  II. made a cemetery of Belgium. This order, thanks be to God, Hungary
  does not know, nor does she desire to know it. Hungary is governed
  only by laws, and, if order requires a change in the government, the
  nation must assemble and assent to the change. Any measure which is
  arbitrarily imposed is not order, but illegality, despotism, that is
  to say, disorder.”

Footnote 28:

  It has been said, among other things, by those writers who support the
  Austrian views, that the abolition of the disabilities of the
  unprivileged class, decreed by the diet in 1848, was a measure of
  policy intended to secure the coöperation of the people in a projected
  revolution. This programme, published eight months before the
  revolution in Paris, which gave occasion to that at Vienna, offers a
  sufficient answer to this assertion.

Footnote 29:

  Before the union of Transylvania with Hungary, there were some
  important differences in the political constitutions of the two
  countries. In Transylvania a distinction of races was recognized. In
  the Transylvanian diet, the Magyars, the Szeklers, and the Saxons were
  represented as distinct nationalities, by their respective deputies.
  The Wallachian inhabitants of the country were not represented in the
  diet as a distinct race; they were counted as Magyars. A Wallachian
  noble might be elected to the diet, but he sat there as a Magyar.
  Among the Szeklers, a race closely kindred to the Magyars, the
  distinction between noble and non-noble has never been introduced.
  They have preserved their ancient institutions in greater purity than
  the Magyars. By the union of Transylvania with Hungary, all political
  distinctions founded on difference of race were abolished: the same
  system of representation was established in Transylvania as in
  Hungary; all the inhabitants, without distinction of race, were
  admitted in the right of suffrage, the possession of a very small
  amount of yearly income being the only qualification required.

Footnote 30:

  “We have state prisoners,” says Birányi, “who, victims of an arbitrary
  act of power, have been pining for years in horrible dungeons. It
  would have been shameful to have forgotten them in the list of the
  national demands.”—_Pesti Forradalom_, Pest, 1848.

  “An inconsiderate word, or a single passage in a perhaps prudently
  written book, torn out of its connection, and invested with an
  arbitrary meaning, was all that was needed to stamp a man as a
  political criminal. This was the easiest means of putting out of the
  way men of distinguished abilities, who might have been able to
  further the welfare of their country.”—Berffi, _Ein Blatt
  Volksgeschichte_. Pest, 1848.

Footnote 31:

  Berffi. Der 15. März, 1848, in Pest. _Ein Blatt Volksgeschichte._

Footnote 32:

  _Pesti Forradalom._ _Irta Birányi Akos._ Pesten, 1848.

Footnote 33:

  Our limits will not allow us, at the present time, to enter into the
  history of the intrigues and illegal proceedings of Austria in the
  southern provinces of Hungary, and more especially in Croatia, for
  many years before the breaking out of hostilities. The citizens of
  this latter kingdom were, in many places, debarred from the exercise
  of their political rights. They were attacked and driven from the
  place of election by the members of the Illyrian faction, furnished
  with arms from the public arsenals. It was in vain they appealed to
  the king. Their remonstrances were unheard. During the sitting of the
  Hungarian diet of 1843–44, the district of Turopolya, in Croatia,
  addressed a petition to that assembly on this subject. The county of
  Zágráb, the largest county in Croatia, likewise addressed to the
  county of Pest in Hungary, February 20, 1846, a very earnest letter,
  relating the acts of illegality and violence which had been committed
  in that county, with the connivance and assistance of the authorities,
  and calling on the Hungarians, in the name of the ancient ties which
  bound the two countries, to join with them in earnestly petitioning
  the king for the redress of this injustice, their own appeals having
  been wholly without effect.

Footnote 34:

  The young prince confesses to some scruples with regard to the first
  project. He suggests, that it might “perhaps” not be thought
  “suitable” for a government to abandon its subjects, “a portion of
  whom, at least, are well disposed, to all the horrors of an
  insurrection.” It is probable that these plans did not originate with
  the Palatine, but were dictated to him at Vienna.

Footnote 35:

  An attempt was likewise made, by the emissaries from Vienna, to excite
  an insurrection in the North of Hungary, among the Slovacs; but with
  little success. A band of marauders was, by the aid of money from
  Vienna, got together, who committed some depredations in the county of
  Trencsén; but they were speedily suppressed. A company of three
  hundred of the Presburg National Guard was sufficient for this
  purpose.

Footnote 36:

  See HEEREN’S Researches among the monuments and concerning the
  commercial relations of the ancient nations of Asia and Europe.

Footnote 37:

  LANDSEER’S Sabæan Researches.

Footnote 38:

  Herodotus, § 89 of Thalia.

Footnote 39:

  See Herodotus, 108 of Erato.

Footnote 40:

  Herodotus.

Footnote 41:

  See Dr. TEFT’S Hungary and Kossuth, p. 337.

------------------------------------------------------------------------




                          TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES


 Page           Changed from                      Changed to

   63 of the princess; and Ferdinand,  of the princess; and Ferdinand,
      prudently waving his pretensions prudently waiving his
                                       pretensions

  176 goodness of the people. It were  goodness of the people. It were
      well of this pleasant book       well if this pleasant book

  221 the crisis which Austria had     the crisis which Austria had
      been for year preparing for the  been for years preparing for the

 ● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained.
 ● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last
     chapter.
 ● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
 ● Enclosed blackletter font in =equals=.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77398 ***