Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:19:34.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Austro-German Liberalism and the Coming of the 1867 Compromise: “Politics Again in Flux”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2013

Jonathan Kwan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 7 October 1866, Adolf Pratobevera—a prominent liberal politician and former Justice Minister—wrote in his diary that “politics [is] again in flux, whether this is a blessing? God knows.” Pratobevera was writing just three months after the battle of Königgrätz/Hradec Králové in a period of immense instability and uncertainty for the Habsburg monarchy. Following Austria's military defeat at Königgrätz, the traditional supports of the system—the emperor, the army, and the bureaucracy—were in a weakened state and this dramatically opened the range of possibilities in politics. Indeed, the defeat threw the whole political system into question, a situation that sharply exposed the fault lines and internal political workings of the monarchy. In the period from Königgrätz on 3 July 1866 to the ministerial meeting on 1 February 1867 (when the emperor definitively decided on the dualist structure), all political parties and movements had the opportunity to define their program, to seek possible allies, and to argue their particular vision of the monarchy's political structure.

Type
Articles
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 44 , April 2013 , pp. 62 - 87
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchive (HHStA), Nachlass Adolf Pratobevera, carton 13, entry dated 7 October 1866.

2 Place names are often contentious when writing about Central Europe. Where there is a widely accepted English place name (e.g., Vienna, Prague, Budapest, Styria, Carinthia), I have used the English version; otherwise, I have given the main variants in the first instance followed by the German place name—since this article is about the Austro-German liberals.

3 For the formation of the “traditional” interpretation, the works of Richard Charmatzs and Joseph Redlich were particularly influential. Charmatz, Richard, Deutsch-österreichische Politik. Studien über den Liberalismus und über die auswärtige Politik Österreichs (Leipzig, 1907)Google Scholar; Charmatz, Richard, Österreichs innere Geschichte von 1848 bis 1907, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1911)Google Scholar; Charmatz, Richard, Das politische Denken in Österreich (Vienna, 1917)Google Scholar; Charmatz, Richard, “Der österreichische Liberalismus: Seine Geschichte und sein Sterben,” Die Zukunft 3 (1956): 75–79Google Scholar; and Redlich, Joseph, Das österreichische Staats- und Reichsproblem. Vol. 2: Der Kampf um die zentralistische Reichsverfassung bis zum Abschlusse des Ausgleiches mit Ungarn im Jahre 1867 (Leipzig, 1926), 2: 673–75Google Scholar. Later works by Georg Franz and Karl Eder continued to be generally critical of the liberals. Franz, Georg, Liberalismus. Die deutschliberale Bewegung in der Habsburgischen Monarchie (Munich, 1955)Google Scholar, 148; Eder, Karl, Der Liberalismus in Altösterreich—Geisteshaltung, Politik und Kultur (Vienna, 1955)Google Scholar, 237. Recent work has been more balanced, recognizing both the enormous contribution of the liberals and their limitations. Boyer, John, Political Radicalism in Late Imperial Vienna: Origins of the Christian Social Movement 1848–1897 (Chicago, 1981), 1–39Google Scholar; and esp. Judson, Pieter, Exclusive Revolutionaries: Liberal Politics, Social Experience and National Identity in the Austrian Empire, 1848–1914 (Ann Arbor, 1996), 1–10 and 267–72Google Scholar.

4 Somogyi, Éva, “Pläne zur Neugestaltung der Habsburger Monarchie nach dem Preußisch-Österreichischen Krieg von 1866,” Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 21 (1975): 16–50Google Scholar; and Somogyi, Éva, Vom Zentralismus zum Dualismus. Der Weg der deutschösterreichischen Liberalen zum Ausgleich von 1867 (Budapest, 1983), 58–93Google Scholar; both outline the internal machinations within the Austro-German liberal movement well but do not discuss the addresses of Town Councils or Diets, which provided crucial forums for liberal maneuvering. Judson, Exclusive Revolutionaries, 105–15 is particularly good on the January 1867 elections but does not investigate the immediate post-Königgrätz situation in detail. There is a short discussion of the various liberal factional meetings in Franz, Liberalismus, 244–49. Two classic works from the first half of the twentieth century concentrate on the high-level negotiations leading up to the Compromise. Eisenmann, Louis, Le Compromis Austro-Hongrois de 1867 (Paris, 1968)Google Scholar, and Joseph Redlich, Das österreichische Staats- und Reichsproblem Vol. 2.

5 The term Cisleithania denotes the non-Hungarian lands that were represented in the Imperial Parliament.

6 See the suggestive comments in Redlich, Das österreichische Staats- und Reichsproblem, Vol. 1, 132. According to the liberal worldview, this hegemony would not be based on specific measures; rather, it would be the “natural” outcome of various factors: the prevalence of the German language in the bureaucracy and military, the historical role of German-speaking elites in building the Austrian state, and the prestige of German culture and science. So, for example, the 1867 December Constitution drafted by the liberals contained universalist language and reflected the belief that a constitutional, progressive state would automatically be dominated by German-speaking elites.

7 See the assessment in Die Presse, no. 58, 28 February 1861 and no. 61, 3 March 1861. The Imperial Parliament was elected by separate curia voting—the Great Landowners, Chambers of Commerce, town, and country—on a regional basis. The government's influence, particularly in the Great Landowners' curia, was often decisive in elections. The representatives from Hungary, Croatia, and Lombardy-Venetia never attended the February Patent's Imperial Parliament. In 1863, the Czech and conservative noble representatives from Bohemia and Moravia decided on nonattendance.

8 For example, in a letter from the Bohemian Alois Brinz to Bartholomäus Carneri dated 22 November 1865. Brinz was asked whether he now belonged to the Autonomists because of his opposition to Belcredi's suspension policy. He was noncommittal but stated that the Bohemian liberals agreed with the Autonomists. Molisch, Paul, ed., Briefe zur deutschen Politik in Österreich von 1848 bis 1918 (Vienna/Leipzig, 1934)Google Scholar, 21.

9 Cohen, Gary, The Politics of Ethnic Survival: Germans in Prague, 1861–1914 (Princeton, 1981), 60–63Google Scholar; and Otto Urban, “Der böhmische Landtag,” in Die Habsburger Monarchie 1848–1918, Vol. 7: Verfassung und Parlamentarismus, No. 2: Die Regionalen Repräsentativkörperschaften, ed. Helmut Rumpler and Peter Urbanitsch, 2003–23 (Vienna, 2000).

10 See the reference in Höbelt, Lothar, “Das Bürgerministerium,” Études Danubiennes 14, no. 2 (1998)Google Scholar: 4.

11 In an interview with Friedjung, Josef Unger used this phrase to describe Herbst. They had disagreed over executive privilege in the bitter parliamentary debates concerning the Berlin Treaty in 1879. Friedjung, Heinrich, Geschichte in Gesprächen. Aufzeichnungen 1898–1919, 2 vols., ed. Adlgasser, Franz and Friedrich, Margret (Vienna, 1997), vol. 2, 295CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 The Autonomists articulated their ideas, as did many political groupings, in the press and brochures of the early 1860s, after strict censorship had been lifted. See, for example, Kaiserfeld, Moriz von, Beiträge zu den Tages-Fragen (Graz, 1859)Google Scholar; Kalchberg, Joseph, Kleine Beiträge zur großen Fragen in Österreich (Leipzig, 1860)Google Scholar; Carneri, Bartholomäus, Neu-Österreich. Ein Wort über ächten und falschen Constitutionalismus (Vienna, 1861)Google Scholar; and Carneri, Bartholomäus, Die freie Gemeinde. Ein Beitrag zur wichtigsten Frage unserer Landtage (Vienna, 1863)Google Scholar.

13 Published after Kaiserfeld's death in Die Presse, no. 65, 7 March 1885: “Moriz v. Kaiserfeld.” I have used the spelling of names most commonly used while the individual was alive. So, for example, Moriz (not Moritz) Kaiserfeld and Adolph (not Adolf) Fischhof.

14 Neue Freie Presse (NFP), no. 504, 25 January 1866, MB. Reprint of the original Pester Lloyd article of 23 January 1866.

15 As Louis Eisenmann observed, before Königgrätz, the Hungarian fifteen-man committee draft constituted the maximum demands for the Hungarians; after Königgrätz, the draft was the minimum. Eisenmann, Le Compromis, 430.

16 Urban, Otto, Die tschechische Gesellschaft 1848–1918, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1994) vol. 1, 235–38Google Scholar.

17 Urban, “Der böhmische Landtag,” 2009–10; and Jiří Malír, “Der mährische Landtag,” in Die Habsburger Monarchie 1848–1918, Vol. 7, ed. Rumpler and Urbanitsch, vol. 2, 2078–82.

18 Urban, Die tschechische Gesellschaft 1848–1918, vol. 1, 280–83. For Belcredi's point of view, see Zimprich, Arthur, “Belcredis Versuche einer Föderalisierung der Donaumonarchie (1865–1867),” Ungarn Jahrbuch 2 (1969): 99–138Google Scholar.

19 For the background, see Zeithammer, Ottokar, Zur Geschichte der böhmischen Ausgleichsversuche (1865–1871), Vol. 1: Von Belcredi zu Hohenwart (Prague, 1912), 8–11Google Scholar; and Urban, Die tschechische Gesellschaft, vol. 1, 284–87.

20 NFP, no. 663, 5 July 1866, MB. The NFP continues with the call for a “radical change of system.” NFP, no. 670, 12 July 1866, MB.

21 Die Presse, no. 186, 9 July 1866, “Adresse um Einberufung des Reichsrathes.”

22 NFP, no. 672, 14 July 1866, MB. A reply questioning the jurisdiction for such an address was given to the Graz Town Council. See NFP, no. 696, 7 August 1866, MB. As late as October, addresses were still being sent to the emperor but were returned with the statement that the address was outside the jurisdiction of the body. See NFP, no. 766, 17 October 1866, MB.

23 Protokolle der öffentlichen Sitzungen des Gemeinderathes der k.k. Reichshaupt—und Residenzstadt Wien, 10 July 1866 (Vienna, 1866), 1719–20Google Scholar. There is an account given in Annemarie Meixner, “Der Wiener Gemeinderat in den Jahren 1864–1868” (PhD, diss., University of Vienna, 1975), 190–94; and in Rogge, Walter, Österreich von Világos bis zur Gegenwart, 3 vols. (Leipzig/Vienna, 1873), vol. 2, 349–50Google Scholar.

24 Protokolle des Gemeinderathes der Wien, 17 July 1866, 1782–83. See also NFP, no. 626, 18 July 1866, MB.

25 See Protokolle des Gemeinderathes der Wien, 24 July 1866, 1815–16, for an account given by Mayor Zelinka at a packed council meeting.

26 Ibid., 1816.

27 NFP, no. 684, 26 July 1866, MB. Public opinion in Vienna is difficult to gauge, but some accounts point to public anger at the government and Belcredi. Sueß, Eduard, Erinnerungen (Leipzig, 1916)Google Scholar, 164; [Pollak, Heinrich], Dreissig Jahre aus dem Leben eines Journalisten. Erinnerungen und Aufzeichnungen, 3 vols. (Vienna, 1894)Google Scholar, vol. 1, 173; and Heller, Jakob Ludwig, Long Forgotten Events from Imperial Austria (Riverside, 2005), 97Google Scholar.

28 Die Presse, no. 202, 25 July 1866.

29 NFP, no. 678, 20 July 1866, MB.

30 Rauscher, Joseph, Hirtenbrief (Vienna, 1866)Google Scholar, 2. The plea is dated 4 July 1866. See also Rauscher, Joseph, Das Jahre 1866. Hirtenschreiben (Vienna, 1866)Google Scholar.

31 Die Presse, no. 202, 14 July 1866. Carl Auersperg was against too many concessions to the Hungarians and was quite centralist in his views. See [Auersperg, Carl], Wofür kämpft Ungarn? Zur Klärung der politischen Standpunkte (Vienna, 1866)Google Scholar.

32 Quoted in Zoltan Kramar, “The Road to Compromise, 1849–1867: A Study of the Habsburg-Hungarian Constitutional Struggle in Its Terminal Phase” (PhD diss., University of Nebraska, 1966), 152. See also von Wertheimer, Eduard, Graf Julius Andrássy. Sein Leben und Seine Zeit, 3 vols. (Stuttgart, 1910)Google Scholar, vol. 1, 216.

33 Redlich, Das österreichische Staats- und Reichsproblem, vol. 2, 506–07.

34 Quoted in ibid., 505.

35 Krones, Ferdinand, Moritz von Kaiserfeld. Sein Leben und Wirken als Beitrag zur Staatsgeschichte Österreichs in den Jahren 1848 bis 1884 (Leipzig, 1888), 251–52Google Scholar.

36 Engel-Janosi, Friedrich, Der Freiherr von Hübner 1811–1892. Ein Gestalt aus dem Österreich Kaiser Franz Josephs (Innsbruck, 1933)Google Scholar, 184.

37 HHStA, Sonderbestände, Nachlaß Alexander Graf Hübner, diary entry 13 August 1866.

38 HHStA, Nachlaß Hübner, diary entry 29 August 1866.

39 HHStA, Nachlaß Hübner, diary entry 27 September 1866.

40 Politik, no. 349, 19 December 1905, “Riegers Erinnerungen aus dem Jahre 1866.” For some comment on the conservative nobles' decision, see Eisenmann, Le Compromis, 433–34; and Kořalka, Jiří, František Palacký (1798–1876). Der Historiker der Tschechen im österreichischen Vielvölkerstaat (Vienna, 2007)Google Scholar, 457.

41 Zeithammer, Zur Geschichte der böhmischen Ausgleichsversuche, vo. 1, 12–15. See also Havránek, Jan, “Die tschechische Politik und der Ausgleich von 1867,” in Der Österreichisch-Ungarische Ausgleich 1867, ed. Vantuch, Anton and Holotík, L'udovít, 520–44 (Bratislava, 1971), at 530–33Google Scholar; Somogyi, “Pläne zur Neugestaltung der Habsburger Monarchie,” 43–49; and Rogge, Österreich, vol. 2, 354–55. Die Presse warned that federalism would only increase centrifugal tendencies and lead to the decomposition of the empire. Die Presse, no. 203, 26 July 1866.

42 A copy can be found in Zeithammer, Zur Geschichte der böhmischen Ausgleichsversuche, vol. 1, 16–22. Similar arguments can be found in [Anon.], Österreich und die Völker Österreichs im Jahre 1866 (Prague, 1866)Google Scholar.

43 The details can be found in NFP, no. 734, 15 September 1866, MB “Eine Einladung L. Rieger's.” See also Rogge, Österreich, vol. 2, 356.

44 In the Styrian Diet, the Slovenian minority could never realistically challenge the majority held by parties representing the German-speakers; though with specific measures, some German-speaking localities could feel under threat.

45 Belcredi, Richard, “Fragmente aus dem Nachlasse,” Die Kultur 7, no. 3 (1906): 274–303Google Scholar, at 275.

46 Somogyi mentions these meetings between the Autonomists and the Czechs. Somogyi, “Pläne zur Neugestaltung der Habsburger Monarchie,” 34. Kaiserfeld's colleague Rechbauer was also extremely wary of upsetting the centralists. See Molisch, Briefe, 33–34. Péter Hanák has argued that the general German liberal attachment to centralism prevented them from playing a leading role in the monarchy. Hanák, Péter, Ungarn in der Donau-monarchie. Probleme der bürgerlichen Umgestaltung eines Vielvölkerstaates (Vienna, 1984), 33–39Google Scholar.

47 See the report in the NFP, no. 698, 9 August 1866, MB.

48 Ibid.

49 Somogyi, Vom Zentralismus zum Dualismus, 252.

50 Telegraf, no. 218, 11 September 1866, MB; and Somogyi, “Pläne zur Neugestaltung,” 32.

51 See the report Telegraf, no. 222, 15 September 1866, AB; and Somogyi, Vom Zentralismus, 64.

52 Fremden-Blatt, 19, 20, and 21 September 1866, “Zur Neubildung der deutsch-österreichischen Verfassungspartei.” See Oberösterreichisches Landesarchiv (OLA), Musealarchiv, Nachlaß Ignaz Figuly, carton 179.

53 Telegraf, no. 225, 19 September 1866, MB.

54 NFP, no. 731, 12 September 1866, MB.

55 NFP, no. 735, 16 September 1866, MB.

56 NFP, no. 722, 2 September 1866, MB. See also NFP, no. 725, 5 September 1866, MB.

57 For background, see Charmatz, Richard, Adolf Fischhof. Das Lebensbild eines österreichischen Politikers (Stuttgart/Berlin, 1910), 169–73Google Scholar.

58 Fischhof, Adolph, Ein Blick auf Österreichs Lage—Sendschreiben an die Redaction des “Telegrafs” (Vienna, 1866)Google Scholar, 6 and 26. The brochure made a significant impact in liberal circles. See, for example, the letter dated 16 October 1866, Anton Auersperg to Ludwig Frankl in von Frankl-Hochwart, Dr. Bruno, ed., Briefwechsel zwischen Anastasius Grün and Ludwig August Frankl (1845–1876) (Berlin, 1897), 233–35Google Scholar.

59 Ibid., 31.

60 Ibid., 37–38.

61 Ibid., 36 and 40.

62 Ibid., 43–45.

63 Ibid., 41–42.

64 Charmatz, Adolf Fischhof, 175.

65 Ibid., 174. Anton Auerperg's nom du plume in Vormärz Austria was Anastasius Grün. He was a distant relative of the later minister presidents, Carl and Adolf Auerperg.

66 NFP, no. 748, 29 September 1866, MB “Ein Lösungsvorschlag.”

67 Telegraf, no. 227, 21 September 1866, AB.

68 See explanation in NFP, no. 760, 11 October 1866, MB.

69 See the report in NFP, no. 754, 5 October 1866, AB.

70 For example, the centralists sent personal letters seeking support. Adolf Tschabuschnigg, a prominent Carinthian liberal and later justice minister in 1870, received letters around this time from Skene, Pratobevera, and Schindler, seeking his support. Kärntner Landesarchives, Nachlaß Adolf Tschabuschnigg, carton 9.

71 Somogyi, Vom Zentralismus, 69–70 and Somogyi, “Pläne zur Neugestaltung,” 41.

72 Ibid.

73 NFP, no. 760, 11 October 1866, AB.

74 Somogyi, Vom Zentralismus, 68–69; NFP, no. 767, 18 October 1866, MB; and NFP, no. 768, 19 October 1866, MB.

75 Telegraf, no. 254, 23 October 1866, MB “Die Wiener Abgeordneten Konferenz.” Interestingly, this newspaper clipping is found in Kaiserfeld's personal papers. Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv, Nachlaß Kaiserfeld, carton 3.

76 NFP, no. 756, 7 October 1866, MB and NFP, no. 798, 18 November 1866, MB.

77 A copy of the draft can be found in the personal papers of the Upper Austrian liberal Ignaz Figuly. OLA, Nachlaß Figuly, carton 179, “Programm Entwurf in Folge der Ausseer Besprechung.” Figuly echoed the sentiments of the Aussee program when addressing the Upper Austrian Diet. Vortrag des Dr. Figuly betreffend die Revision der Landes-Ordnung und der Landtags-Wahlordnung des Erzherzogthumes Österreich ob der Enns (Linz, 17 November 1866).

78 NFP, no. 751, 2 October 1866, MB “Zum Verfassungstreit.”

79 Die Presse, no. 294, 27 October 1866 “Zur Klarstellung der Parteistandpunkte.” See also Johann N. Berger's reply defending the Aussee conference, which he attended. NFP, no. 777, 28 October 1866, MB “Auch ein Wort zur Klarstellung der Parteistandpunkte.”

80 NFP, no. 772, 23 October 1866, MB and NFP, no. 777, 28 October 1866, MB “Hasner and Skene.”

81 In private, Herbst remained a centralist but, in public, would become one of the main supporters of the Compromise with Hungary. See Ignaz von Plener to Ernst von Plener, 24 May 1867 in Molisch, Briefe, 39.

82 Among the Austro-German liberals, Beust was seen as an outsider. Plener, Ernst, Erinnerungen, 3 vols. (Stuttgart/Leipzig, 1911–1921)Google Scholar vol. 1, 98; and Pollak, Dreissig Jahre, vol. 1, 173.

83 Redlich, Das österreichische Staats- und Reichsproblem, vol. 2, 524–33.

84 Stenographische Protokolle des niederösterreichischer Landtages, 5th Session, 19 November–30 November 1866, 26 November 1866, 19–61. The NFP had a copy of the draft in the morning edition of the first day of the debate. NFP, no. 806, 26 November 1866, MB, “Adresse des niederösterreichischen Landtags.” On 14 November 1866, twelve liberal representatives met at Pratobevera's house in Vienna to decide on a common approach to the up-coming session of the Lower Austrian Diet. Some wanted information about the Aussee and centralist programs, but the real purpose was to talk about the upcoming Diet address to the emperor. NFP, no. 796, 16 November 1866, MB. See also the letter Pratobevera sent to the NFP. NFP, no. 797, 17 November 1866, MB.

85 Ibid., 20. The specific language used was of great importance. A commentator of the time Friedrich Giehe wrote that “the language itself is very decisive.” Giehe, Friedrich, Zwei Jahre österreichischer Politik. Aus einem Tagebuch (Schaffhausen, 1868)Google Scholar, 227. Entry dated 26 November 1866.

86 Ibid., 42.

87 Ibid., 55. The NFP signaled out Schindler's speech for praise in light of its German nature. NFP, no. 809, 29 November 1866, MB.

88 Ibid., 57.

89 NFP, no. 810, 30 November 1866, MB.

90 Zusammenstellung der Verhandlungen über die vom oberösterreichischen Landtage am 3. und 4. Dezember 1866 (Wels, [1866?]), 7–9. Drafts of the Upper Austrian address, as well as the Moravia minority address, were circulated to the press before the actual debates. NFP, no. 810, 30 November 1866, AB.

91 Verhandlungen des Salzburger Landtages. 5th session, 3 December 1866, 323–28.

92 Landtags-Blatt über die Sitzungen des mit allerhöchsten Patente vom 14 October 1866 einberufenen mährischen Landtages, 4 December 1866, 114.

93 Ibid., 116–22.

94 For the address, see ibid., 123–24. For the NFP's observation that it was not overly centralist, see NFP, no. 811, 1 December 1866, MB.

95 Ibid., 5 December 1866, 152–53.

96 Ibid., 153.

97 Ibid., 154–56.

98 Nine months later in August 1867 when the Compromise was long concluded and the delegations law was in the process of passing in the Imperial Parliament, Skene continued to defend the idea of a central parliament and attacked the terms of the Compromise as ceding dominance to Hungary. This caused immense disquiet in liberal ranks and required speeches from Kaiserfeld and Herbst, among others, to quell the unrest and ensure continued liberal discipline in realizing the Compromise and creating a liberal constitutional, dualist system. See Die Neuegestzgebung Österreichs. Die Verfassungsgesetze und die Gesetze über die finanziellen Ausgleich mit Ungarn (Vienna, 1868)Google Scholar, 573. Others shared Skene's opinions; see, for example, Der Ausgleich mit Ungarn vom österreichsichen Standpunkte beleuchtet (Vienna, 1867)Google Scholar.

99 Landtags-Blatt des mährischen Landtages, 174–79.

100 These arguments mirrored his brother's defense of the 1865 suspension of the constitution. Belcredi, Richard, “Fragmente aus dem Nachlasse,” Die Kultur 6, no. 4 (1905), 399–403Google Scholar; and Belcredi, Richard, “Fragmente aus dem Nachlasse” Die Kultur 7, no. 4 (1906), 412–22Google Scholar.

101 Landtags-Blatt des mährischen Landtages, 192–201.

102 Rogge, Österreich, vol. 2, 372.

103 Die Verhandlungen des böhmischen Landtages über die Verfassungesfrage in der Zeit vom Dezember 1865 bis April 1867 (Prague, 1867), 50–53Google Scholar. See also the supplement in Rede des Abgeordneten Dr. Herbst gesprochen in der Sitzung des böhmischen Landtages am 7 Dezember 1866 (Prague, 1866), 17–18Google Scholar.

104 Ibid., 54–57.

105 Ibid., 57–61. Plener was a strong centralist, and his despair at the monarchy's state was expressed in more length in the brochure “Der Zerfall Oesterreichs,” published anonymously in March 1867. “[T]he collapse of Austria,” wrote Plener ironically adopting František Palacký's famous phrase from 1848, “is a European necessity.” Plener], [Ignaz von, Der Zerfall Oestreich's von einem Deutschen Oestreicher (Leipzig, 1867)Google Scholar, 70.

106 Die Verhandlungen des böhmischen Landtages, 64.

107 Ibid., 79.

108 Rede des Herbst, 3–4.

109 Ibid., 4.

110 Ibid., 10.

111 Ibid., 19.

112 Ibid., 12–13.

113 Stenographische Protokolle über die Sitzungen des steiermärkischen Landtages. 5th session von 19 November bis 22 Dezember 1866, 10 December 1866, 87–88. Also quoted in Krones, Moritz von Kaiserfeld, 260, who wrongly gives the date as 7 December 1866.

114 Ibid.

115 Ibid., 75.

116 The Carinthian Diet had the address debate on 14 December 1866. See Stenographische Protokolle der fünften Session des kärtnerischen Landtages zu Klagenfurt. 19 November bis 19 Dezember 1866, 14 December 1866, 145–65.

117 Redlich argues that during most of the negotiations, both Deák and Andrássy opposed a dualist system with federalism in the Cisleithanian half. Redlich, Das österreichische Staats- und Reichsproblem, vol. 2, 504 and 533–35. During the August conferences in Vienna, Andrássy made clear that the Hungarians wanted a German-dominated, unified system in Cisleithania. Eisenmann, Le Compromis, 414, 420, and 431–32.

118 NFP, no. 817, 7 December 1866, MB.

119 Stenographische Berichte über die Sitzungen des galizienische Landtages im Jahre 1866, 7 December 1866, 126–30. See also NFP, no. 819, 10 December 1866, AB.

120 Rogge, Österreich, vol. 2, 360. See also Józef Buszko, “The Polish Attitude towards the Compromise,” in Der Österreichisch-Ungarische Ausgleich 1867, ed. Vantuch and Holotík, 600-606.

121 Ibid., 133–35. See also NFP, no. 817, 7 December 1866, AB.

122 Somogyi, Vom Zentralismus, 75.

123 Gustav Kolmer, Parlament und Verfassung in Österreich. 5 vols. Vol. 1: 1848–1869 (Graz, 1972), 240. This stance was also made clear by the Czech leaders Rieger and Alois Trojan in the Bohemian Diet. NFP, no. 818, 8 December 1866, MB, “Die Landtage.”

124 Politik, no. 350, 20 December 1905, “Riegers Erinnerungen aus dem Jahre 1866.”

125 Belcredi, “Fragmente aus dem Nachlasse,” Die Kultur 6, no. 4 (1905): 396–422Google Scholar, at 414.

126 Rogge, Österreich, vol. 2, 374.

127 Die Protokolle des österreichischen Ministerrates 1848–1867. 4/2, no. 119, 23 December 1866, 369–72.

128 Kolmer, Parlament und Verfassung in Österreich, vol. 1, 245–47; and Redlich, Das österreichische Staats- und Reichsproblem, vol. 2, 537–46.

129 Tages-Post, no. 9, 11 January 1867, “Zum Januar-Patent.” The Tages-Post was a Linz liberal newspaper. Eisenmann calculated that the extraordinary parliament would result in 108 federalists and 95 centralists. Eisenmann, Le Compromis, 452. Charmatz used the same figure. Charmatz, Deutsch-österreichische Politik, 120.

130 Giehe commented on their unity. Giehe, Zwei Jahre, 279. The meeting is discussed in its essentials in Haider, Barbara “Introduction,” in Die Protokolle des Verfassungsausschusses des Reichsrates vom Jahre 1867, ed. Haider, Barbara, (Vienna, 1997), 27–29Google Scholar. In a letter from Herbst to Pratobevera dated 9 January 1867, Herbst emphasized the need for unity. Molisch, Briefe, 35.

131 See the report in NFP, no. 853, 14 January 1867, AB.

132 Ibid.

133 NFP, no. 855, 16 January 1867, MB.

134 Belcredi, “Fragmente aus dem Nachlasse,” Die Kultur 7, no. 3 (1906): 274–303Google Scholar, at 282.

135 Ibid., 281. See also Giehe, Zwei Jahre, 287; and Eisenmann, Le Compromis, 454.

136 Ibid., 282.

137 Ibid. This linkage was made clear by Beust in his speech on 5 June 1867. See Beust, Aus Drei-Viertel Jahre, vol. 2, 76. Herbst wanted more—perhaps even a parliamentary ministry, according to Beust. See Redlich, Das österreichische Staats- und Reichsproblem, vol. 2, 659.

138 Belcredi, “Fragmente aus dem Nachlasse,” Die Kultur 7, no. 3 (1906)Google Scholar: 274. Belcredi questioned whether the Austro-German liberals would really have seen through the blanket boycott.

139 The memorandums are quoted substantially in Redlich, Das österreichische Staats- und Reichsproblem, vol. 2, 552. For background, see also Somogyi, Vom Zentralismus, 89–92.

140 Belcredi, “Fragmente aus dem Nachlasse,” Die Kultur 7, no. 3 (1906), 284–86Google Scholar. Beust often used the press in his political machinations. See Pollak, Dreissig Jahre, vol. 1, 198–99.

141 [Belcredi, Richard], Über die Wahlen zum Landtage (Vienna, 1867)Google Scholar.

142 Kolmer, Parlament und Verfassung in Österreich, vol. 1, 246–47. See also the comments in Arneth, Alfred, Aus meinem Leben 2 vols. (Vienna, 1892)Google Scholar, vol. 1, 308; and Rogge, Österreich, vol. 2, 385.

143 NFP, no. 865, 26 January 1867, MB.

144 Belcredi, “Fragmente aus dem Nachlasse,” Die Kultur 7, no. 3 (1906), 286–88Google Scholar.

145 Belcredi, “Fragmente aus dem Nachlasse,” Die Kultur 7, no. 2 (1906)Google Scholar, 150.

146 Full transcription can be found in Die Protokolle des österreichischen Ministerrates 1848–1867.4/2, no. 126, 2 February 1867, 398–406.

147 Rottenbacher, Bernd, Das Februarpatent in der Praxis. Wahlpolitik, Wahlkämpfe un Wahlentscheidungen in den böhmischen Ländern der Habsburgermonarchie 1861–1871 (Frankfurt, 2001), 87–123Google Scholar. In March 1867, with the reelections to the Bohemian Diet and the realization of the Compromise in train, Beust stated that “[t]he Emperor has spoken, the Emperor calls!” See also Kolmer, Parlament und Verfassung in Österreich, vol. 1, 251.

148 Carneri, Bartholomäus, Österreich nach der Schlacht bei Königgrätz. Ein freies Wort den Deutschen in Österreich gewidmet (Vienna, 1866)Google Scholar, 19.

149 The effect of the political exclusion from Germany on the German-speaking population in the Habsburg monarchy has often been mentioned but barely investigated in depth. Friedjung's interpretation that the real victims of 1866 were the Austro-Germans who thereby lost their political center of gravity has been highly influential. Friedjung, Heinrich, Der Kampf um die Vorherrschaft in Deutschland 1859 bis 1866 (Stuttgart, 1898), 515–16Google Scholar. Paul Molisch has a similar German nationalist viewpoint and argued that the separation of German nationalism from the Austrian state began from this time. Molisch, Paul, Geschichte der deutschnationalen Bewegung in Österreich von ihre Anfängen bis zum Zerfall der Monarchie (Jena, 1926), 68–72Google Scholar. Recently, Jörg Kirchhoff has noted the onset of a “minority complex” resulting from 1866 and an increased stress on the German character of Austria. Kirchhoff, Jörg, Die Deutschen in der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie. Ihr Verhältnis zum Staat, zur deutschen Nation und ihr kollektives Selbstverständnis (1866/67–1918) (Berlin, 2001), 40–44Google Scholar.

150 See the suggestive comments in Judson, Exclusive Revolutionaries, 9–10.

151 This was stated directly by the finance minister in the Taaffe government, the Galician-Polish leader Julian Dunajewski in the 1885 Budget debates. By making these comments, he attracted the deep enmity of the Austro-German liberals, especially their leader Ernst von Plener (the son of Ignaz von Plener). See Stenographische Protokolle über die Sitzungen des Hauses der Abgeordneten, 402 Sitting, 9 Session, 29 February 1885, 14002; and Plener, Erinnerungen, vol. 2, 279.

152 Höbelt, Lothar, ed., Der Vater der Verfassung. Aus den Denkwürdigkeiten Anton Ritters von Schmerling (Vienna, 1993), 121Google Scholar.

153 Politik, no. 350, 20 December 1905, “Riegers Erinnerungen aus dem Jahre 1866.”

154 This policy is discussed in Jaszi, Oscar, The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy (Chicago, 1929), 103–04Google Scholar and 115; and recently in Déak, Ágnes, From Habsburg Neo-Absolutism to the Compromise 1849–1867 (Boulder, 2008)Google Scholar, 41. See also Kolmer, Parlament und Verfassung in Österreich, vol. 1, 76. For a balanced assessment of Francis Joseph as monarch in his first years under the dualist system, see Fellner, Fritz, “Kaiser Franz Joseph und das Parlament. Materialien zur Geschichte der Innenpolitik Österreichs in den Jahren 1867–1873,” Mittheilungen des österreichischen Staatsarchivs 9 (1956), 287–347Google Scholar.

155 Friedjung, Heinrich, “Der österreichisch-ungarische Ausgleich von 1867,” in Historische Aufsätze, ed. Friedjung, Heinrich, 135–69 (Stuttgart and Berlin, 1919)Google Scholar; and Srbik, Heinrich, “Franz Joseph I. Charakter und Regeriungsgrundsätze,” in Aus Österreichs Vergangenheit. Von Prinz Eugen zu Franz Joseph, ed. Srbik, Heinrich, 221–41 (Salzburg, 1949)Google Scholar.

156 Robert Kann, “The Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 in Retrospect. Causes and Effects,” in Der Österreichisch-Ungarische Ausgleich 1867, ed. Vantuch and Holotík, 24–44. The article is also reproduced in Kann, Robert, Dynasty, Politics and Culture: Selected Essays (Boulder, 1991), 194–218Google Scholar.