Abstract
Cieger analyses the development of the modern parliamentarism in Hungary within the Austro-Hungarian monarchy. The chapter focusing on the parliamentary debates and political essays shows the conflicts between the old norms of the Hungarian political culture and the new patterns of the West European political system. Although the Hungarian parliamentarism intended to follow the English model on account of the solid constitutional fault line, the rotation of parties in government was unable to develop. Furthermore Franz Joseph would not completely accept the principle of ‘king in parliament’ and neither did the new ‘checks and balances’ of government power come into being in the Hungarian political system. Finally, throughout the period antagonistic conceptions of municipal autonomy existed in the political discourse.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The constitutions, still in force, of the Netherlands and Denmark were passed in parliament in 1848/1849 as was the German imperial constitution (March 1849), but the latter never came into force. One constitution, that of Prussia, was imposed on the country on 5 December 1848 (and remained in force until 1918).
- 2.
István Deák, The Lawful Revolution. Louis Kossuth and the Hungarians, 1848–1849 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979). More recently, László Péter has claimed this was not correct. He believes the political regime of 1848 was rather a swerving off from the centuries-old Hungarian constitutional development and political culture: from the legislation crystallizing through lengthy parliamentary bargaining. The agreement between the king and the parliament, which came about in 1848 rapidly, under various pressures, would very probably have resulted in a conflict-ridden system even without armed struggles. See László Péter, Hungary’s Long Nineteenth Century: Constitutional and Democratic Traditions in a European Perspective. Collected Studies (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2012) 12.
- 3.
András Gergely, ‘Britischer Parlamentarismus oder Grundgesetz aus Belgien? Ungarns Aprilgesetze aus dem Jahre 1848’ in M. Kirsch and P. Schiera (eds.), Verfassungswandel um 1848 im europäischen Vergleich (Schriften zur europäischen Rechts- und Verfassungsgeschichte, vol. 38.) (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 2001) 305–12; András Cieger and András Gergely, ‘Ungarn’ in Werner Daum et al. (eds.), Handbuch der europäischen verfassungsgeschichte im 19. Jahrhundert, vol. 3 (Bonn: Dietz, forthcoming).
- 4.
Éva Somogyi, Ferenc József [Francis Joseph] (Budapest, Gondolat, 1989) 230–1.
- 5.
The ‘Cassandra Letter’ of Lajos Kossuth, Paris, 22 May 1867, in Ágnes Deák, From Habsburg Neo-Absolutism to the Compromise 1849–1867 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008) 589–91.
- 6.
András Gerő, The Hungarian Parliament (1867–1918). A Mirage of Power (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997) 5–55.
- 7.
The most important constitutional texts and political works were translated into Hungarian in a few years after the Settlement. See, for example, Alkotmányok gyűjteménye [Collection of Constitutions] 2 vols (Pest, 1867); A francia büntető törvénykönyv [The French Penal Code] (Sopron, 1867); J.S. Mill, A képviseleti kormány [Considerations on Representative Government] (Pest, 1867); J.S. Mill, A szabadságról [On liberty] (Pest, 1867); E. Laboulaye, Az állam és határai [L’État et ses limites] (Kolozsvár, 1869); Reginald Palgrave, Képek az angol alsóház történetéből és működéséből [The House of Commons: Illustrations of its History and Practice] (Pest, 1870); J.K. Bluntschli, A politikai pártok [Character und Geist der politischen Parteien] (Pest, 1872).
- 8.
András Cieger, ‘Sichtweisen der Verwaltungsautonomien 1848–1918’ in Jenő Gergely (ed.), Autonomien in Ungarn 1848–2000 (Budapest: L’Harmattan, 2006) 22–77; László Katus, Hungary in the Dual Monarchy 1867–1914 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008) 105–52.
- 9.
István Stipta, Die Vertikale Gewaltentrennung. Verfassungs- und rechtsgeschichtliche Studien (Budapest: Gondolat, 2005) 193–243.
- 10.
Kálmán Tisza, Parlamenti felelős kormány és megyei rendszer [Parliamentarian responsible government and county system] (Pest, 1865).
- 11.
Virgil Szilágyi, A köztörvényhatósági önkormányzat biztosításáról. A szabadság híveinek [Ensuring of the Municipal Self-government. For the Proponents of the Freedom] (Pest, 1867) 78–80.
- 12.
‘Lajos Kossuth’s Verfassungsentwurf’ in Peter Brandt et al. (eds.), Quellen zur europäischen Verfassungsgeschichte im 19. Jahrhundert: Institutionen und Rechtspraxis im gesellschaftlichen Wandel, vol. 3. (CD-ROM) (Bonn: Dietz, 2015).
- 13.
Lajos Kossuth, ‘Angol representativ governement és franczia parlamentárius különbség’ [Difference between English representative government and French parliamentary government] in Ferenc Kossuth (ed.), Kossuth Lajos iratai [Lajos Kossuth’s Papers] vol. 7 (Budapest, 1900) 412 and 414.
- 14.
Lajos Kossuth, ‘A kormány-patronage romlasztó befolyása a nemzet jellemére’ [Disruptive Influence of Governmental Patronage to the National Character] in Ibid., 402–10.
- 15.
Kálmán Tisza’s speech on 30 June 1870, Az 1869-dik évi april 20-dikára hirdetett országgyűlés képviselőházának naplója [Records of the House of Representatives called for 20 April 1869] vol. 9 (Pest, 1870) 36.
- 16.
Ernő Simonyi’s speech on 7 July 1870, Ibid., 234.
- 17.
Sándor Mocsonyi’s speech on 2 July 1870, Ibid., 102.
- 18.
Ernő Simonyi’s speech on 7 July 1870, Ibid., 235.
- 19.
Lajos Mocsáry’s speech on 5 July 1870, Ibid., 159.
- 20.
Dániel Irányi’s speech on 1 July 1870, Ibid., 71.
- 21.
Ferenc Deák’s speech on the recovery of taxes on 16 July 1868, in Deák Ferenc, Válogatott politikai írások és beszédek [Ferenc Deák’s Selected Political Writings and Speeches] II. S.a.r. Deák Ágnes (Budapest: Osiris, 2001) 522.
- 22.
Deák’s speeches on the reform of justice on 1 July 1869, Ibid., 582-3.
- 23.
Deák’s speeches on the procedure of government against Heves County on 6 November 1867, Ibid., 484 and 487.
- 24.
Gyula Andrássy’s speeches, published by Béla Léderer, vol. 2 (Budapest, 1893) 329–30.
- 25.
According to the act passed in 1870, the largest taxpayers would, without elections, become members of the general courts of the municipalities: this was called virilism at the time. By introducing virilism, the governing party wished to create a new and strong middle class, which could be the engine of bourgeois transformation. However, the opposition thought that virilism was a privilege that could help a narrow, wealthy group gain decisive influence in controlling public affairs, creating a new feudal system.
- 26.
József Eötvös’s speech on 19 July 1870, Records of the House of Representatives, vol. 10, pp. 149–53.
- 27.
Ágoston Trefort’s speech on 5 July 1870, Records of the House of Representatives, vol. 9, pp. 165–6.
- 28.
Imre Halász, ‘A közigazgatási eszmék fejlődése Magyarországban’ [Development of the Ideas of Public Administration in Hungary] Part 1, Nyugat, 1914, vol. 13.
- 29.
‘Indoklás a köztörvényhatóságok és a községek rendezéséről szóló törvényjavaslatokhoz’ [Justification for the bill on the organisation of municipalities], Az 1869-dik évi april hó 20-dikára hirdetett országgyűlés képviselőházának irományai. [Documents of the House of Representatives] No 485, vol. 5 (Pest, 1870) 190.
- 30.
Boldizsár Horvát, ‘A köztörvényhatóságok rendezéséről. Kritikai visszapillantás a képviselőház vitájára’ [On the organization of municipalities. Critical retrospection to the debate of the House of Representatives] Budapesti Szemle, vol. 46, issue 114 (1886) 440–65.
- 31.
With regard to the above factors, according to some researchers the system of government after the Settlement was not a ‘parliamentary monarchy of the western type’, and, therefore, can be called at best ‘pseudo-parliamentarism’. See, for example, Zoltán Szente, Kormányzás a dualizmus korában. A XIX. századi európai parlamentarizmus és Magyarország kormányformája a kiegyezés után, 1867–1918 [Governance in the dualist era. 19th-century European parliamentarism and the Hungarian form of government after the Settlement, 1867–1918] (Budapest: Atlantisz, 2011). László Péter also claims in his book that parliamentary government in the Western sense did not function in Hungary, but he also emphasizes that the parliament was the true centre of the political life of the nation, which for all its defects and peculiarities was spreading the language and spirit of Western European politicking in that bourgeois period. See László Péter, Hungary’s Long Nineteenth Century, 213–280.
- 32.
Capota, Crina–Vese, Vasile, ‘Citizenship, Loyalty and National Identity in Austria–Hungary: the Romanian Case (1848–1918)’ in Steven G. Ellis, G. Hálfdanarson and A.K. Isaacs (eds.), Citizenship in Historical Perspective (Pisa: Edizioni Plus Pisa Univ. Press, 2006) 127–39.
- 33.
Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cieger, A. (2019). New Models and Old Traditions: Debates on Parliamentarism in Hungary After the Austro-Hungarian Settlement of 1867. In: Aerts, R., van Baalen, C., te Velde, H., van der Steen, M., Recker, ML. (eds) The Ideal of Parliament in Europe since 1800. Palgrave Studies in Political History. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27705-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27705-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27704-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27705-5
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)