1 Taylor, A. J. P., The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918 (new ed.; London: Hamish Hamilton, n.d.), pp. 51–52.Google Scholar

2 Arthur, Herman, Metternich (New York: The Century Co., n.d.), p. 212.Google Scholar

3 Rudolf, Kiszling, Die Revolution im Kaisertum österreich, 1848-1849 (2 vols.; Vienna, 1948), I, 16–17Google Scholar. For the approaches of Srbik, Arnold Whitridge, and others to Széchenyi, see George, Barany, “The Széchenyi Problem,” Journal of Central European Affairs, XX, No. 3 (Oct., 1960), 251–69.Google Scholar

4 May, Arthur J., The Habsburg Monarchy, 1867-1914 (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), p. 24.Google Scholar

5 Kann, Robert A., A Study in Austrian Intellectual History (New York, 1960), p. 1960 Google Scholar; cf. Kann, , The Multinational Empire (2 vols.; New York, 1950), I, 118–20 and 381-82, n. 23.Google Scholar

6 Horvathá, Mihaly, Huszonöt év Magyarország történelméből, 1823-1848 (3rd ed., 3 vols.; Budapest, 1886), II, 193 Google Scholar; Ludwig, Wirkner, Meine Erlebnisse (Pressburg, 1879), pp. 119, 123Google Scholar; Franz, Pulszky, Meine Zeit, mein Leben (4 vols.; Pressburg and Leipzig, 1880-83), I, 207, 243.Google Scholar

7 Baron Ambrozy's term, cited in Ede, Wertheimer, Gróf Andrdssy Gyula elete is kora (3 vols.; Budapest, 1910), I, 10, n. 3.Google Scholar

8 For bibliographical references on Széchenyi, see the Széchenyi number of the Journal of Central European Affairs, XX, No. 3 (Oct., 1960). For a recent Marxist re-evaluation in English, cf. Barta, I, “István Széchenyi,” Acta Historica, VII, No. 1-2 (1960), 63–101.Google Scholar

9 “The Opposition in the Diet of Pressburg, ” Docs. 784 and 785 in Metternich-Winneburg, Richard, ed., Memoirs of Prince Metternich, IV (London, 1881), 248–59Google Scholar; Metternich to Szögyényi and to the Staatskonferenz, Annex XII. 4 and XII. 6 in Gyula Viszota, ed., Gr. Széchenyi István naplói (cited hereafter as Diaries) (6 vols.; Budapest, 1925-39, published as Vols. X-XV of Szechenyi's Complete Works in Fontes Historiae Hungaricae Aevi Recentioris), II, 700-5 and 711; Ferstl and Steinbach reports, Annex II. 6a and V. 3c, Diaries, III, 608 and 775; Steinbach reports in László Bártfai-Szabó, ed., Adatok grdf Szichenyi Istvdn és kora történetéhez, 1808-1860 (hereafter cited as Contributions) (2 vols.; Budapest, 1943), I, 70-71; Sándor Tákacs, “Elsö kaszindink és Metternich” in his Hangok a multból (Budapest, n.d.), pp. 160-202. For details of the first phase of the Széchenyi-Metternich “debate, ” see George Barany, “The Emergence of Szichenyi and Hungarian Reform until 1841, ” unpub. doctoral diss. (Boulder: University of Colorado, 1960), pp. 254-77.

10 Gyula, Farkas, A “Fiatal Magyarország” kora (Budapest, 1932), p. 10.Google Scholar

11 Pulszky, I, 48-54; Horvath, I, 266-68; Homan, Balint and Szekffl, Gyula, Magyar torténet (2nd ed., 5 vols.; Budapest, 1935-36), V, 285–86Google Scholar; Merei, Gyula and Spira, György, eds., Magyarország története a feudalizmusról a kapitalizmusra vald átmenet korszakában, 1790-1849 (Budapest, 1957), pp. 179–81, 192-96.Google Scholar

12 Entries of Oct. 5 and 25, 1831, Jan. 19 and 28, Feb. 2, 4, and 10, July 27, 1832, in Viszota, ed., Diaries, IV, 222, 226, 238-42, 283; George Andrássy to Széchenyi, Sept. 6 and Oct. 12, 1831, Wesselényi to Széchenyi, Oct. 26, 1831, Michael Eszterhézy to Széchenyi, Jan. 14, 1832, in Bértfai-Szabó, ed., Contributions, I, 125, 137, 142, 156; Széchenyi to Wesselényi, Oct. 20, 1831, in Béla Majláth, ed., Gróf Széchenyi István levelei (hereafter cited as Letters) (3 vols.; Budapest, 1889-91), I, 202.

13 Széchenyi to Wesselényi, Aug. 26, Oct. 5, Nov. 8, and Dec. 5, 1831, Jan. 5, 1832, in Majláth, ed., Letters, I, 194, 200, 203-5, 208-9; Wessélenyi to Széchenyi, Oct. 26, Nov. 29, and Dec. 18, 1831, in Bártfai-Szabó, ed., Contributions, I, 142, 147-50.

14 As early as 1839, Julia Pardoe used the term “Reform Diet” in her book The City of the Magyar of Hungary and Her Institutions in 1839-40 (3 vols.; London, 1840), III, 231, and she also frequently referred to the “Liberal party throughout the kingdom.“

15 For the Diet of 1832-36, see Horváth, I, 288-461; II, 3-32; Heman-Szekfű, V, 286-99; Lajos Hőke, “Az 1830. és 1832-36-iki országgyűlések, ” Hazdnk, V, 161-87; also, Deák's report in Kónyi, Manó, ed., Deák Ferencx beszùdei, 1829-1873 (2nd ed., 6 vols.; Budapest, 1903), I, 267–313Google Scholar, and Lajos, Kossuth, Országgyűlùsi tudósitások (4 vols.; Budapest, 1948-59)Google Scholar published as Vols. I-III of Kossuth LajosÖsszes Munkái in Fontes (cited hereafter as Dietal Reports).

16 Speeches of Mar. 4, May 21, and June 4, 1833, in Kossuth, Dietal Reports, I, 214-15, 400-1, 436-37; also Deùk's speech on the mutual relationship of the two Chambers, in Kenyi, ed., 1, 13-15.

17 “Hivátas, ” Pesti Hirlap, No. 14 (Feb. 17, 1841), republished in Zoltán Ferenczi, ed., A kelet nùpe, Szùchenyi's Complete Works, V (Budapest, 1925), 139, in Fontes.

18 Szùchenyi, Hunnia, pp. 5-6. Written in the mid-thirties, the book was published posthumously by János Török in Gróf Szùchenyi Istvdn politikai iskolája, saját műveiből összedllitva (3 vols.; Pest, 1864), III, 1-62.

19 Wirkner, pp. 76-90; Pardoe, III, 23; Horvath, I, 372-412, 416-21; also, Hanns Schlitter, Aus österreichs Vormärz, III: Ungarn (Zurich, Leipzig, and Vienna, 1920), p. 5. For agricultural conditions and the situation of the serfs in Hungary, see Iványi Grünwald, Bùla, “From Feudalism to Capitalism: The Economic Background to Szùchenyi's Reform in Hungary,” Journal of Central European Affairs, XX, No. 3 (Oct., 1960), 270–88Google Scholar; Jerome Blum, Noble Landowners and Agriculture in Austria, 1815-1848: A Study in the Origins of the Peasant Emancipation of 1848, Ser. LXV, No. 2 (1948), “The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science.“

20 For the text of the law, see Gyula Szekfű, ed., Iratok a magyar dllamnyelv kùrdùsùnek tortinùtùhez, 1790-1848 (cited hereafter as Documents) (Budapest, 1926), p. 482. Published in Fontes.

21 For the interchangeability of terms and the importance of the “superstructure of religious animosity, ” see the observations in Pardoe, II, 155-65; also, police reports of Aug.2 and Sept. 8, 1840, in Bártfai-Szabó, ed.. Contributions, I, 361-63.

22 Gyula, Miskolczy, A horvát kùrdùs (2 vols.; Budapest, 1927-28), I, 114–53Google Scholar. In Fontes

23 Horváth, II, 249.

24 A study of Hungarian nationalism which pays due attention to Széchenyi's role, is Ludwig, Spohr, Die geistigen Grundlagen des Nationalismus in Ungarn (Berlin and Leipzig, 1936)Google Scholar, published in Ungarische Bibliothek (ed. J. Farkas), first series, No. 23. (Criticism of the study's “völkisch” ideology, in Hóman-Szekfű, V, 628.) For different shades of early nineteenth-century Hungarian nationalism, cf. Kosáry, Domokos, Kossuth Lajos a reformkorban (Budapest, 1946), esp. pp. 207–38, 261-62, 273-77.Google Scholar

25 See, e.g., some of t h e warnings in even his most eloquent plea for the Hungarian language, Hunnia, pp. 13-14, 20-21, 31. Also Francis S. Wagner, “Széchenyi and t h e Nationality Problem in t h e Habsburg Empire, ” Journal of Central European Affairs, XX, No. 3 (Oct., 1960), 287-311.

26 For Wesselényi, see Horváth, I, 433-54; I I , 55-61; also Samu, Kardos, Báró Wesselényi Miklós élete és munkái (2 vols.; Budapest, 1905)Google Scholar and Trócsányi, Zsolt, “Wesselényi Miklós fogsága,” Századok, XCIV, No. 5-6 (1960), 794–810Google Scholar, and XCV, No. 2-3 (1961), 281-98, the latter being excerpts from a new Wesselényi biography.

27 See Viszota's introduction to Diaries, IV, p p. xv-xvi a n d xlvi, and Széchenyi's entries of Nov. 25 a n d Dec. 6, 1833, July 22, 1834, Jan. 14, Feb. 12 and 27, Mar. 3-6 a n d 16, Apr. 21, 26, a n d 28, May 2-3, June 22-30, July 1 and 6, 1835, ibid., pp. 430, 433, 485, 516, 524, 527, 529, 532, 541-49, 567-77.

28 Horváth, I, 303-5; Hóman-Szekfq, V, 297; Pulszky, I, 103-5, 111-22; Ballagi, Géza, A nemzeti dllamalkotds kora, 1815-1847 (Budapest, 1897 Google Scholar, Vol. IX of A magyar nemzet tűrttnete, ed. Sandor Szilagyi, pp. 419-30. Daniel Kaszonyi, “Egy régibb kor ifjai” and “Egy régibb kor ferfiai, ” Hazdnk, IV (1885), 562-84 and 519-54; Sándor Takács, “A juratusok kaszinói, ” in Hangok a multból, pp. 203-50.

29 Entry of Feb. 25, 1832, in Viszota, ed., Diaries, IV, 247.

30 One of the young patriots, László Lovassy, who was subsequently condemned for ten years at a secret trial and went insane in jail, was the first to come out openly for the emancipation of the Jews at a meeting of the law students’ casino during the Diet of 1832-36. Violent opponents of Jewish emancipation were the overwhelmingly German burghers of Pressburg and Pest, incidentally, the centers of the most educated and well-todo segment of Hungarian Jewry. A proposal to grant Jews full citizenship was first made in the Diet during the debate of religious freedom in April, 1833, by Császár, deputy of Temes county, who was later seconded by Dubraviczky, deputy of Pest county. See Sandor Takács, “A pénzkirályok nalunk, ” in Hangok a multbdl, p. 359, notes 9 and 10; Kossuth, Dietal Reports, I, 297 and 456. For alleged intimate connections between Polish emigres and the dietal youth, Ballagi, pp. 418 and 428.

31 Annex I, 1833/S, in Viszota, ed., Diaries, IV, 669. For Kossuth, see Lajos, Kossuth, Irataim az emigrációból (10 vols.; Budapest, 1881-1914)Google Scholar; German, ed., Meine Schrijten aus der Emigration, trans. Helfy, Ignaz (3 vols.; Pressburg, 1880-82)Google Scholar; English ed., Memoirs of My Exile (New York, 1880); supplemented recently by Kossuth Lajos Összes Munkdi, Vols. XI-XV (Budapest, 1951-57), in Fontes. Domokos, Kosary, op. cit.; Emlékkűnyv Kossuth Lajos szóletésének 150. évforduldjdra (2 vols.; Budapest, 1952)Google Scholar, and the introductions to Gyula, Viszota, ed., Gr. Széchenyi István irűi is hirlapiroi vitdja Kossuth Lajossal (2 parts; Budapest, 1927-30)Google Scholar, Vol. VI of Szechenyi's Complete Works in Fontes (hereafter cited as Szechenyi-Kossuth Debate). Cf. Endre, Sebestyen, Kossuth, a Magyar Apostle of World Democracy (Pittsburgh, 1950).Google Scholar

32 Entries of June 27-29, 1835, May 28, July 19, 1836, and June 9, 1837, in Viszota, ed., Diaries, IV, 570 71, and V, 6, 12, and 85.

33 Entry of Dec. 14, 1835 in Viszota, ed., Diaries, IV, 624; Wirkner, pp. 104-7; Horváth, II, 34-62; Ballagi, pp. 415-18, 438-39.

34 Hóman-Szekfű, V, 299. For Kossuth's attitude during the trial o£ the dietal youth and his own imprisonment, see Kosáry, pp. 137-84. Kosary's analysis also reveals the administration's blunders, characterized alternately by timid vacillation and illegal measures, both of which assisted Kossuth in becoming a national hero.

35 Sedlnitzky report on the participants of the Diet of 1832-36, Annex I, 1836/8a-b, in Viszota, ed., Diaries, IV, 706-9; also, Metternich's derogatory remark, Aug. 15, 1838, Diaries, V, 197, and police reports of Jan. 27, Feb. 1 and 8, 1839, in Bártfai-Szabó, ed., Contributions, I, 331-33.

36 Entry of Jan. 28, 1836, and Annex I, 1836/la-c (Staatskonferenzakten, 1836: 211 and 238) in Viszota, ed., Diaries, IV, 637 and 696-703.

37 The correspondence referred to was recently published in Andics, Erzsébet, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége (Budapest, 1961)Google Scholar, Annex, Docs, la-c, pp. 187-96. Originals in the Österreichisch.es Staatsarchiv (Vienna) Staatskanzlei III. Russland. Varia. For Metternich's fear of an international conspiracy of revolutionaries and for his role in the political processes in Hungary, see also Gyula, Miskolczy, A Kamarilla a reformkorszakban (Budapest, n.d.), pp. 105–7 and 112-13Google Scholar (cited hereafter as The Camarilla).

38 Algernon, Cecil, Metternich (3rd ed.; London, 1947), pp. 254–55, 276Google Scholar; Coudray, H. du, Metternich (New Haven, 1936), pp. 271–76, 280Google Scholar. For the origins of the “doctrine of intervention, “ Paul W., Schroeder, “Austrian Policy at the Congresses of Troppau and Laibach,” Journal of Central European Affairs, XXII, No. 2 (July, 1962), 140 and 151-52.Google Scholar

39 Actually, the Archduke-Palatine recovered and lived until January, 1847. For the direct source of Metternich's attack on the Palatine and of his remarks concerning the opposition, see the secret report to Sedlnitzky, “corresponding completely” to the Chancellor's “own sentiments, ” in Schlitter, pp. 78-79, n. 5 (Staatskonferenzakt, Z, 544 ex. St. A.).

40 Italics i n the original.

41 Metternich to Apponyi, Docs. 1318-1323, 1325, and Metternich to Sainte-Aulaire, Doc. 1324, in Metternich-Winneburg, Richard, ed., Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren (8 vols.; Vienna, 1883), VI, 264–76Google Scholar (cited hereafter as Nachgelassene Papiere).

42 Report to Emperor Ferdinand, Doc. 1338, Metternich-Winneburg, ed., Nachgelassene Papiere, VI, 284-86; Heinrich Srbik, Ritter von, Metternich, der Staatsmann und der Mensch (3 vols.; Munich, 1925-54), III, 157–58Google Scholar.

43 “Freymܗthige Darstellung der politischen Lage Ungarns in gegenwärtiger Zeit, ” in Bártfai-Szabó, ed., Contributions, I, 323-25, 330; also, Cziraky's memorandum of Aug. 31, 1836, in Szekfű, ed., Documents, pp. 482-85.

44 To Paul Szechenyi, Apr. 8, 1839, Bártfai-Szabű, ed., Contributions, I, 338.

45 Wirkner, pp. 107-9; Ballagi, pp. 469-71.

46 The royal propositions, i.e., the administration's legislative program for the Diet, showed a complete lack of imagination. Two of the three propositions dealt with military problems (recruits and food supplies), the third one with the Danube regulation.

47 Entries of Mar. 8, Aug. 4-6, 30, and Oct. 19 in Viszota, ed., Diaries, V, 251, 302-3, 309, 321-22.

48 Horváth, II, 105-8; Ballagi, pp. 492-500; Anton, Springer, Geschichte Oesterreichs seit dem Wiener Frieden 1809 (2 vols.; Leipzig, 1863-65), II, 37–41Google Scholar; Knatchbull-Hugessen, C. M., The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation (2 vols.; London, 1908), I, 307–10Google Scholar. For an apology of the Catholic clergy's standpoint, see Meszlényi, Antal, A jozefinizmus kora Magyarországon (Budapest, 1934), p. 344–416.Google Scholar

49 Part of Szechenyi's speech is cited in Miksa, Falk, Grűf Széchenyi Istvdn es kora (Pest, 1868), pp. 117–18 Google Scholar. Published in German as Graf Stephan Szeéhenyi und seine Zeit (Vienna, 1866).

50 Horvath, II, 110-35; Zoltán Ferenczi, Deák élete (hereafter cited as Dedk) (3 vols.; Budapest, 1904), I, 246-51; Falk, pp. 105-8; Kerékgyártó, Arpád, Tiz év Magyarország legujabb történelméből, 1840-1849 (Budapest, n.d.), pp. 1–10Google Scholar; Pulszky, I, 206-8, 225; Homan- Szekfű, V, 319-20; Trecsanyi, pp. 809-10; Knatchbull-Hugessen, I, 303-5; “Aus dem Tagebuche der Fiirstin Melanie, ” June 17-23, in Metternich-Winneburg, ed., Nachgelassene Papiere, VI, 306. Also, police report of Dec. 24, 1839, in Bártfai-Szabó, ed., Contributions, I, 356.

51 Entry of June 10, Viszota, ed., Diaries, V, 287.

52 Entries of July 24, Aug. 23, 26, Sept. 4, 1839, Jan. 11 and Feb. 20-21, 1840, in Viszota, ed., Diaries, V, 300, 307-8, 311, 347-48, and 358.

53 Police reports of Jan. 27 and Apr. 12, 1839, Aug. 27 and Sept. 8, 1840, in Bartfai Szabd, ed., Contributions, I, 331-32, 341-42, 361-63; also, Viszota's introduction to Diaries, V, pp. xv, xxvi-xxvii.

54 Entries of Nov. 14, 1837, Mar. 23, June 20, July 2, 6, 8, 24, and Dec. 21, 1839, in Viszota, ed., Diaries, V, 129-30, and n. 8, 259-60, 290, and n. 3, 291, 294-95, and n. 7, 296-97, 299-300, 343. (In his notes to the diary entries, Viszota frequently cites Szechenyi's speeches as reported by police agents.) See also Falk, pp. 112-14 and Annex III in Pardoe, III, 429-30.

55 Entries of June 22, July 3, Aug. 6, 14, 29, Sept. 13, Oct. 25, Nov. 20, Dec. 17-18, 23, 25, and 30-31, 1839, Jan. 2-4, 8, 16, 28, Feb. 22, 26, Apr. 10, 13, 27, and 30, 1840, in Viszota, ed., Diaries, V, 292, 295, 303, 305, 309, 314, 324, 332, 341-47, 349, 352, 359-60, 373, 378-80; Ferenczi, Deak, I, 302-3, 307-10. 56pulszky, I, 212-14, 232-33, 242-43; Wirkner, pp. 116-19; Rosary, p. 183; Ferenczi, Deak, I, 247-310. Concerning Deak's readiness to compromise and his negotiations in Vienna prior to the opening of the Diet, cf. also Ballagi, pp. 459-61 and Tr6csanyi in Szdzadok (1960 and 1961), pp. 799, 808-9, and 285-86, respectively. For Majlath's conciliatory attitude, reform ideas, and connections with the young conservatives, see Miskolczy, The Camarilla, pp. 107-15.

57 For a comparison, with a brief summary of the most important acts of the two Diets, see Kerekgyart6, pp. 20-43. The full text of the laws was published in Corpus juris hungarici— Magyar Tdrve'nytdr: Milleniumi Emlekkiadds, VIII (Budapest, 1896), 3-192.

58 Act VI of 1839-40 was also published in Szekfű, ed., Documents, pp. 510-11; for its interpretation, cf. Macartney, C. A., Hungary (London, 1934), pp. 94–95 Google Scholar, and Miskolczy, The Croatian Question, I, 224-25.

59 Falk, pp. 117-18.

60 The great expectations concerning the feasibility of voluntary agreements between landlords and serfs, however, failed to materialize, causing the liberal opposition to demand new legislation in subsequent years. See Ignácz Acsády, A magyar jobbágysdg története (Budapest, 1908), pp. 482-89. Yet even in its permissive form, the enactment of the principle of manumission compensation tended to undermine the validity of the ancient law of aviticity (entailment), the economic cornerstone of Hungarian feudalism. See Miskolczy, The Camarilla, esp. pp. 180-85.

61 Gyula, Merei, Magyar iparfejlődes, 1790-1848 (Budapest, 1951), p. 167.Google Scholar

62 As late as Jan. 30, 1842, Metternich opposed Szechenyi's nomination to the rank of “Keeper of the Crown, ” a distinction proposed by the Palatine, suggesting that Széchenyi was not “sufficiently mature as yet” to receive such an award from the administration. Cited in Viszota, ed., Szechenyi-Kossuth Debate, I, p. cv. Miskolczy, Cf. Julius, Ungarn in der Habsburger-Monarchie (Vienna and Munich, 1959), p. Munich.Google Scholar

63 Entry of June 4, 1840, i n Viszota, ed., Diaries, V, 387 and n. 2; police report of the same day in Bartfai-Szabd, ed., Contributions, I, 360-61.

64 Entries of Apr. 30, May 12 a n d 18, 1840, in Viszota, ed., Diaries, V, 380, 383, a n d 385.

65 E n t r y of Apr. 30, 1840, ibid., p. 380, a n d Széchenyi to Pulszky, July 20, 1840, in Majláth, ed., Letters, III, 63-64; also Szechenyi to Deak, Feb. 1, 1841, in Bártfai-Szabó, ed., Contributions, I, 371-72.

66 Entry of Aug. 19-20, 1840, i n Viszota, ed., Diaries, V, 398; Friedreich, István, Gróf Széchenyi István élete (2 vols.; Budapest, 1914-15), I, 440 Google Scholar; Antal, Zichy, Gr. Szechenyi Istvan életrajza (2 parts; Budapest, 1896-97), I, 449–50Google Scholar. Published in Magyar történeti életrajzok, XII-XIII, ed. Sándor Szilágyi.

67 On June 9 and Nov. 19, 1840. See Viszota, ed., Szechenyi-Kossuth Debate, I, 788-89 and n. 5.

68 “Aus dem Tagebuche der Furstin Melanie, ” J u n e 27, J u ly 7, 12, 18, 20, Aug. 2, early September and Dec. 20, 1839; Metternich to Apponyi, Docs. 1357-63, in Metternich-Winneburg, ed., Nachgelassene Papiere, VI, 307-12, 326, a n d 342-52; also, entry of Aug. 12, 1839, in Viszota, ed., Diaries, V, 304, and Comte de Sainte-Aulaire, Souvenirs (Vienne, 1832-41, and Paris, 1926), p p. 261-65 and 279.

69 Entries of Apr. 30, Aug. 5, Dec. 21, 1839, Feb. 2 and 14, May 14 and 18, 1840, in Viszota, ed., Diaries, V, 274, 303, 342-43, 353, 356, 383, a n d 385.

70 Gustav, Roloff, “Fürst Metternich iüber die slawische und ungarische Gefahr im Jahr 1839,” Mitteilungen des ősterreichischen Instituts fiir Geschichtsforschung, LII (1938), 70.Google Scholar

71 Falk, p. 109; Ferenczi, Dedk, I, 279-80; Ballagi, pp. 471-72 and 486.

72 Viszota, ed., introductions to Diaries, V, pp. xvi-xvii, and to Széchenyi-Kossuth Debate, I, pp. lxiii-lxv; also Ferenczi, ed., A kelet nepe, pp. 11-16; Rosary, pp. 191-93.

73 Wirkner, pp. 129-89; “Der Sprachenkampf in Ungarn” and “ttber die ungarischen Zustánde, ” Docs. 1476 and 1492 in Metternich-Winneburg, ed., Nachgelassene Papiere, VI, 672-77, and VII, 51-63; Schlatter, pp. 5-7, 20-25, 98-101, and 103; also Viszota, ed., Diaries, V, pp. xx-xxvi, and Széchenyi-Kossuth Debate, I, pp. cxliii-cxlvii, and Annex VII and VIII, pp. 693-743. As an interesting sidelight to the problem, one may mention that precisely when Metternich again began to urge Austria's cooperation with the Zollverein to counterbalance Prussia's influence, a policy which required a closer economic union between Hungary, Transylvania, and the Austrian half of the empire (Metternich to Kubeck, Doc. 1423 in Metternich-Winneburg, ed., Nachgelassene Papiere, VI, 531-39, and esp. note on p. 539, also Srbik, III, 163-64), forces of economic separatism began to prevail in Hungary under the influence of Frederick List's doctrines. The latter caused Kossuth and an increasing segment of Hungarian public opinion to shift from their former “free trade“ position to a policy demanding protective tariffs in order to safeguard Hungarian economic interests against Austrian competition. See Rudolf, Sieghart, Zolltrennung und Zolleinheit: Die Geschichte der ősterreichisch-ungarischen Zivischenzoll-Linie (Vienna, 1915)Google Scholar, esp. 103-7, 114-15, 119-33; also Miskolczy, Ungarn in der Habsburger-Monarchie, pp. 71-76, and The Camarilla, pp. 137-42; Kosary, pp. 232-37. American relations with the empire, both commercial and diplomatic, were also affected by these intraimperial economic problems, as shown by Sister Hess, Mary Anthonita, American Tobacco and Central European Policy: Early Nineteenth Century (Washington, D.C., 1948), pp. 87–141Google Scholar, and George, Barany, “The Interest of the United States in Central Europe: Appointment of the First American Consul to Hungary,” Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, XLVII (1962), 276–80, 292.Google Scholar

74 On the opening of the Hungarian Diet in Pressburg in May, 1843, Metternich belittled this event in a letter to the King of Prussia, reminding him that there was nothing behind the noise, that the parties in the Diet fought only against each other, that the whole thing would be a rather interesting spectacle if it were not so boring, and that “one must not forget that but a hundred and fifty years previously, Hungary had still been under a Pasha.” Metternich-Winneburg, ed., Nachgelassene Papiere, VI, 677, note. Cf. “Der Sprachenkampf in Ungarn, ” ibid., p. 673, and also the Chancellor's remarks concerning the “opposition” written in January, 1848, and cited in Schlitter, pp. 135-36, n. 225; it would be quite interesting to compare critically Metternich's “evaluations” of the Hungarian opposition during the period 1825-48.

75 Szechenyi, “A széntgróti levél elemzése, ” Jelenkor, May 18-Aug. 17, 1845, in Viszota, ed., Szechenyi-Kossuth Debate, II, 556, 588-92, 596-97, 610-13, and 618-20; also Ferenczi, Dedk, pp. 445-50; Miskolczy, Ungarn in der Habsburger-Monarchie, pp. 70-71.

76 Cf. Macartney, pp. 92-93.

77 See Schlitter, pp. 61, 63, and 137, n. 236, concerning the creation of a moderate “middle” party.

78 Metternich's “synoptic” approach to Hungarian problems, evidenced in his letters to Nicholas I mentioned above, also affected his attitude toward the establishment of foreign consulates in Hungary; see Barany, “The Interest of the United States in Central Europe: Appointment of the First American Consul to Hungary, ” pp. 293-97; also, Comte de Sainte-Aulaire, pp. 180-81.