Liberalism and the Habsburg Monarchy, 1861-1895

J. Kwan

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781137366924
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Modern History
• Index: History

Often the liberal movement has been viewed through the lens of its later German nationalism. This presents only one facet of a wide-ranging, all-encompassing project to regenerate the Habsburg Monarchy. By analysing its various nuances, this volume provides a new, more positive interpretation of Austro-German liberalism.

Part I
The Era of the Constitutional Party, 1861–79

1

Articulating the Austro-German Liberal Vision, 1861–65

On 29 April 1861, the day parliament was formally opened, the Theater an der Wien presented a drama in verse by a little known author, Hugo Mandlick, in praise of parliament’s salutary effects. On the stage where many works by Mozart and Beethoven had been premiered, Mandlick’s short play formed the prelude to the main evening’s entertainment, Donizetti’s Lucia di Lammermoor. ‘Nature’, played by an actor, remained on stage while a philosopher, artist, priest, farmer, city-dweller, soldier and statesman successively entered seeking guidance. ‘Nature’ then parted the clouds and a picture of parliament appeared to the strains of the Austrian people’s hymn, also known as the Emperor’s hymn, Haydn’s famous melody that is now used as the German national anthem. ‘Nature’ intoned:

See there where the new House stands

The Austrian parliament

No folk are shut out

Who have not themselves stayed away –

Understand then for life’s garden

With careful, clever hands working

We will then in beautiful light

Witness the ripening of golden fruit

Then will the land where we live

Dominated by the hard work of its citizens

Create a joyful scene

For all states – a role model!!!

[‘Genius’ comes out of the parliament building and the music swells louder.]¹

While the sentiments seem overblown, even kitsch, this celebration captured the real sense of optimism in liberal circles after the publication of the February Patent and the calling of central parliament. Despite the financial, political and diplomatic difficulties resulting from a decade of neo-absolutism and the recent military defeat in Northern Italy, many liberal reformers continued to believe that the Monarchy could be regenerated and modernised through a liberal constitution and a working parliament. A pamphlet published for the opening of parliament echoed Mandlick’s optimism and proclaimed that the ‘shattered Fatherland’ would now be strengthened and would thrive. The author, Johann Schmickl, looked forward to the end of secretive decision-making and the onset of positive action to create a ‘strong, powerful Austria’, especially as a Great Power. Schmickl appealed for unity around the universal ideas of ‘justice and freedom without any national differentiation’.²

The opening of parliament along with the revival of regional Diets and town councils, a rapidly expanding associational life and a reinvigorated press all contributed to a new openness in the public sphere, hence the liberal optimism. Franz Hopfen, who would later become President Vice-President of the Lower House, wrote that ‘the appearance of the February Patent electrified me, like every true Austrian’.³ All the important issues facing the Monarchy were now to be debated and dissected, often at an extremely sophisticated level, in a public forum. This included the nature of the Emperor’s decrees, the composition of his government, the state of the Monarchy’s finances, its future development of a constitutional state, the place of the Monarchy in international affairs (especially its status as a Great Power), the role of the Church in society and the difficulties with Hungary – all sensitive, complex and weighty issues.⁴ For Austria, with its traditions of Monarchical authority, bureaucratic absolutism, social conservatism and official Catholic Church influence, this was a profound change. The lid had been lifted and the Emperor could never completely put it back down.

In the period of Austria’s first long-term sitting parliament, from April 1861 to September 1865, the liberals passed important laws and installed new institutions. These political goals also aimed at a much wider moral regeneration of the Monarchy based on the values, norms and culture of the Bürgertum. The local authorities law of 1862, for example, was intended to instil a sense of citizenship in the population as well as combat potential absolutism from central bureaucracy. The Austro-German liberals debated and defined their vast, protean project in social clubs, salons, the press and public institutions of the 1860s. Ideas were openly discussed and honed, a putative party organisation gradually developed and the liberals confronted concrete challenges, especially from the Emperor, his government, the bureaucracy and various political groupings who boycotted the new system. Often perceiving themselves as embattled, the liberals remained unified – amidst their considerable diversity – around their core principles. The early to mid 1860s was a crucial incubation period for both the Monarchy’s and the liberals’ subsequent political development. It laid the template for the liberal movement and the Monarchy’s politics for the next twenty years.

Parliament met in a hastily erected, wooden parliamentary building at Vienna’s Schottentor. While the February Patent provided for 343 representatives from all the regions of the Monarchy, approximately 100 representatives attended the opening ceremony, while others arrived over the next few weeks. They had been elected through the various regional Diets according to a four-curia system. The February Patent allocated seats for each region in the curias of the Great Landowners, the chambers of commerce, towns and countryside. Each had different tax requirements for voting qualification but, in general, the German Bürgertum was over-proportionately represented, while the Great Landowners’ curia both in regional Diets and in the central parliament (Reichsrat) occupied a crucial balancing role and was susceptible to government influence.⁵ Of the delegates in the new parliament, the left centre, where the Austro-German liberals sat, was the most heavily occupied, whereas the outer left and the outer right were sparsely used.⁶ Indeed, whole regions did not send any delegates, including Hungary, Croatia, Transylvania, Venetia and Lombardy.

Four days after the opening of parliament, Emperor Francis Joseph read the first ever speech by an Austrian Monarch to the houses of parliament. The respected liberal newspaper, Die Presse, gave voice to the excited mood in liberal circles: ‘the event of the present day is without precedent in the history of Austria’.⁷ The speech, prepared in consultation with the State Minister Anton Schmerling, evinced a hope that liberal institutions would provide equality for peoples (Völker) and facilitate the participation of the people’s representatives in laws.⁸ The Emperor spoke of a ‘new epoch’ but also reminded the representatives where ultimate power lay, describing the new constitution as ‘given by me’ and his personal ‘reawakening’ of dormant institutions. Finally, the Emperor expressed a hope that the whole Monarchy would send its representatives to meet around his throne.⁹

The Lower House immediately voted for a committee to draft an address of thanks to the Emperor. In parliamentary life the address debate – normally conducted at the outset of a parliamentary session or in response to a serious, pressing matter – allowed representatives to expound their general viewpoints and to delineate their positions. Amongst the inaugural 1861 address committee members were Carl Giskra, František Rieger and Eduard Herbst; prominent figures who would dominate Austrian politics for the next few decades – Giskra and Herbst as Austro-German liberal leaders from Moravia and Bohemia respectively and Rieger as the Czech leader in Bohemia. The address was drafted after some consultation with Schmerling and was agreed upon unanimously in committee. Quite general in outline, the address thanked the Emperor for his trust, welcomed the emphasis on autonomy and hoped for a solution to the abstinence of various regions.¹⁰

The first speaker when the address came up for debate in parliament was the German liberal leader from Carinthia, Adolf Tschabuschnigg, who welcomed the integrated, Monarchy-wide constitution and warned against any ideas of dualism or pluralism, which could, he asserted, lead to increasing separatism.¹¹ The next speaker was Jiří Clam-Martinic, the leader of the conservative Bohemian nobles and a strong federalist who believed in a powerful, autonomous Bohemia rather than a central parliament for the whole Monarchy. Unsurprisingly, he expressed dissatisfaction with the address desiring a clearer message of peace and reconciliation. Clam wanted an amendment to the wording of the address so that the Lower House was not framed as a collective but as the representative body of the different regional Diets. The phrasing in the draft address was ambiguous – ‘in Reichsrat representing the regional Diets’ – but Clam wanted to make his point and to use the phrase ‘those who were sent as delegates to the Reichsrat from the convened regional Diets’. Clam made his reasoning very clear: ‘[w]e are not against the unity of the Empire, rather only against centralisation, which is the greatest danger to Imperial unity that has ever appeared. (Bravo Right).’

Other speakers mentioned Hungary’s abstinence either arguing for a stronger, more developed constitution or for clearer direction from the government.¹² Ignaz Kuranda – a prominent journalist and liberal who had been involved in politics during the Vormärz and the 1848–49 Revolutions – expressed disappointment at the address, believing it to be the result of a compromise in the committee. This provoked the Czech leader František Rieger, who had been a member of the address committee, to present his viewpoint. Rieger stated that in the committee there had been no compromise and that since he had been in such a small minority he had no other choice but to vote for the address. In fact, he supported Clam’s amendment, affirming that in his opinion the attendees were simply representatives of the regional Diets. Karl Wiser, the leading liberal in Upper Austria and also a member of the address committee, defended the wording and stated that the address was indeed a compromise since the majority phrased it so as not to show the clash of principles.¹³ For the vote on Clam’s amendment the whole Right stood up in support and some in the Left and the Centre. This was not, however, enough for the amendment to pass.

A Czech leader, Karel Klaudy, then argued for a more general debate, rather than one for specific amendments, so that overall standpoints could be given. Forced to defend the address, Carl Giskra stated his position in unambiguous words:

Gentlemen … if German strength at the neighbouring borders of other peoples has made them disappear more and more, then it is the strength of German culture (Call from Right: And German force. President calls for order), it conquers the lesser cultural levels. Gentlemen, you cannot reproach the Germans for that. No German is obligated to preserve the history of other peoples. The Bohemians have their history – it has been silent for two hundred years – (Disquiet Right). The Hungarians have their history, we Germans also have our history, and with the same rights that the other nationalities are proud of in their history, so we Germans are proud of German history since I say: it is the history of human culture (Bravo Left. Oho Right).¹⁴

This statement encapsulates many aspects of Austro-German liberal thinking. There is the steadfast belief in the assimilating power of German culture. There is also a view of history that stressed the development of a state. Finally, there is the perception of German culture as a universal value, spreading enlightenment and progress.

Rieger continued the debate by expressing his disappointment that the Croats were not attending and criticised the prevailing liberal dogma that insisted on support for the February Patent or nothing: ‘I can in no way recognise here the spirit of reconciliation or tolerance of which so much has been spoken. Rather, you in the majority have let us taste the very dregs from the bottom of the cup of suffering.’¹⁵ Rieger lamented the lack of Slavic representatives and criticised centralisation as a means of Germanisation. With a clear hint of threat he stated that if a nationality was oppressed then there must be a break with the system. Perhaps, mused Rieger, the February Patent’s parliament would not survive to complete its mission.¹⁶ This provoked general disquiet in the house. At the end of the debate, Clam reinforced the federalist view by stating, to more restlessness from the Left, that ‘we don’t recognise the February Patent as untouchable’.¹⁷ Throughout the debate, Clam and Rieger presented the essential elements of the conservative Bohemian noble–Czech viewpoint. They argued for a federal system with Bohemia as an autonomous kingdom while centralisation was attacked as oppressive Germanisation. Finally, they relied on favour from the Monarch and a possible change of system.

This first serious exchange in parliament, along with intense dialogue in the press and regional Diets, defined the respective viewpoints of the Austro-German liberals and the conservative Bohemian noble–Czech camp for the next two decades. Of course, there was much variance within the respective camps and much disunity, especially amongst the Austro-German liberals. However, there were overarching principles and beliefs that gave coherence and unity to the camps. The address debate was a perfect opportunity to convey the contrasting views as the public, government and Monarch watched from the sides. Ultimately, the address was voted through by 127 votes to 48. The February Patent’s parliament was off to an inauspicious start. Only half of the intended delegates were in attendance and the ‘unanimous’, unified address only masked fundamental disagreements about the structure and direction of the Monarchy. Yet for the Austro-German liberals it was also an opportunity, together with a sympathetic government under the bureaucratic liberal Schmerling, to begin work on building a modern, progressive Monarchy. Strongly influenced by Josephinist, enlightened traditions, the liberals perceived themselves as the vanguard of a great his...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• List of Place Names and Regions
• List of Abbreviations
• Epigraph
• Introduction: Liberalism, Nationalism and the Austrian State
• Part I The Era of the Constitutional Party, 1861–79
• Part II The Paradigm Change: The Liberals in Opposition, 1879–85
• Part III Defending Deutschtum: Liberalism and the Rise of Nationalist Politics
• Conclusion: Austro-German Liberalism at the Turn of the Century
• Appendix 1 Austrian/Cisleithanian Ministers and Joint Ministers, 1861–95
• Appendix 2 Political Fraktionen, Clubs and Parties in the Austrian/Cisleithanian Parliament, 1861–97
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index