A Doctrine of ‘Harmonization of Interest’: the Basis of the Reform Policy of the Hungarian Liberals in the Vormärz Zoltán Györe University of Novi Sad ABSTRACT his chapter deals with the evolution of a liberal concept known as the ‘harmonization of interests’, which appeared in Hungary during the irst half of the 19th century. his concept served as the ideological framework for the so-called Hungarian transformation by coordinating the many diferent social and ethnic groups seeking social and political change. Implementing this reform policy required tackling several problems: the resistance of the Viennese court, opposition within Hungarian society itself, and inally, the lack of a common language for the non-Hungarian population. Posle ponovnog ujedinjenja teritorija Kraljevine Mađarske početkom 18. veka, postale su vidljive brojne teške posledice dugotrajnih ratova sa Osmanskom Imperijom i Austrijskom Monarhijom i pokazalo se da njihova sanacija zahteva puno vremena, rada, inventivnosti i odgovarajuće političke okolnosti. Elita mađarskog društva je postala svesna da se sa dubokim promenama u mađarskoj državi i društvu i sa izazovima koje su nametala zbivanja u širem evropskom kontekstu, njihovo društvo može uspešno nositi samo ukoliko je spremno na korenite i sistemske promene. Od sedamdesetih godina 18. veka do 1830. godine iskristalisalo se mišljenje da je neophodna razgradnja feudalnog sklopa i promena ustavnog uređenja, pravnog sistema i društvenih odnosa u liberlnom građanskom duhu. Jezgro programa liberalne mađarske opozicije postao je koncept ujedinjenja interesa, široko zamišljen i dinamičan sistem liberalnih ideja, usmeren na iznalaženje teorijskih i praktičnih mogućnosti sprovođenja građanskog preobražaja, pri čemu se težilo da se preko ukidanja feudalnih odnosa, proširenjem individualnih i građanskih sloboda na celokupno stanovništvo, bez razlike na veru, naciju ili socijalnu pripadnost; putem privrednog i civilizacijskog razvoja, ujedine interesi nacionalno, verski i socijalno veoma diferenciranog stanovništva Kraljevine Mađarske. Pokazalo se, da se dobro promišljenom i istrajnom političkom delatnošću može čak i u nepovoljnim untrašnjepolitičkom i međunarodnim okolnostima uspešno raditi na promeni 130 Zoltán Györe ustavnog pa i društvenog sistema. Već u predrevolucionarnom periodu su ispunjeni neki od programskih ciljeva liberala, pri čemu se pokazalo, da će ujedinjenje interesa biti najteže u pogledu nacionalnih programa. Posebnu prepreku predstavljali su liberalna politika postepene mađarizacije nemađarskog stanovništva kao i posebni, jasno formulisani nacionalni programi nekih od narodnosti. Revolucionarne okolnosti s proleća 1848. omogućile su ogroman uspeh liberala, ali su, ujedno, izazvali okolnosti koje su konsekventno sprovođenje liberalnog programa onemogućili i u krajnjoj instanci, prolongirali za dvadeset godina. Pri tome su liberalna rešenja iz 1848. godine, posle 1867. postala pomalo zastarela (socijalna problematika), naročito u nagodbaškom ambijentu koji je onemogućio razvoj demokratičnog pravnog sistema. Freedom is such an inexhaustible treasure that it does not wither away nor weaken but, on the contrary, grows and becomes stronger, the greater the number of people who enjoy it. Lajos Kossuth, 18331 Beginning in the late 18th century the problem of constitutional, social, and institutional change in Hungary became one of the main items on the political and intellectual agenda. he process of civic transformation in Hungary was very complex and it was marked by signiicant peculiarities of its own. Also, its political and cultural impact had far reaching consequences not only for the history of ethnic Hungarians but also for the political and cultural development of the non-Hungarian minorities. During the inal decades of the 18th century a plethora of liberal and national movements emerged in Europe. heir common aim was to reform social and political systems which they deemed no longer viable. he dynamics of change depended upon social diferentiation and the balance of power among political factions. Change also involved confronting traditional political, economic, and civic doctrines. Finally, the international context also directly inluenced reformist activities in many countries. In the early 19th century the bourgeoisie and the nobility were the leaders of this new liberal spirit, although intellectuals also played a highly visible role. he Kingdom of Hungary during the 18th century witnessed all these changes and more. It also confronted transformations in state-law, demographic relations, administration, and in ethnic structure and minority cultures. All its territories – which had been divided during the last century and a half – were united again in the decades ater the Treaties of Sremski Karlovci [Karlowitz] and Požarevac [Passarowitz], in 1699 and 1718, respectively. However, it was clear that, given the devastating consequences of the wars with the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Empire, radical and systematic reforms would be needed to make the new state a success. For example, between 1770 and 1830 it became crystal clear that the feudal structure needed to be abolished, a new The Basis of the Reform Policy of the Hungarian Liberals in the Vormärz 131 constitution created, and a workable legal system established. Several obstacles stood in the way of these liberal reforms in Hungary. he Kingdom of Hungary was an integral part of the Habsburg Empire and, therefore, it was not in a position to make decisions relating to foreign policy and military matters. Neither was it able to generate its own revenue. Secondly, ethnic and social diferences represented a serious obstacle to forming a consensus. Finally, Hungary lagged behind the counties of western Europe politically, economically, and socially. From the 1770s on, contemporaries analyzed this situation in scientiic, artistic, and political discourse and pamphlets. he irst political program to ofer solutions appeared in 1790. From this point until 1830, the concept of ‘harmonization of interests’ served as the basis for liberal bourgeois transformation. Hungarian liberals hoped to change not just a few institutions in the sphere of state and politics, but also gradually to upgrade the entire constitutional system and all the important legislative, administrative, and legal institutions, in addition to improving relations with the Imperial court in Vienna. However, given the prevailing political circumstances these political and social goals collided with those of the conservative elements in Hungarian society and the Habsburg court. he main objective of this chapter is to analyse the problems, possibilities, and limits of political activity aimed at social and political integration in a country where these obstacles carried great weight. HUNGARIAN LIBERALISM While liberalism provided reformers with an ideological framework, it also interested the general public in Hungary during the irst half of the 19th century. Liberal ideas and the need for middle-class social transformation were discussed in a wide range of forums and were circulated by means of books, newspapers, and pamphlets and other ephemera. Even more popular spaces and media of difusion included sociability in casinos, travelling theatres, and marketplaces as well as the common practice of reading newspapers aloud to an illiterate audience. By such means liberal bourgeois ideas penetrated every social layer and became the basis of oppositional political activity up to the revolution of 1848. It can be argued that Hungarian liberalism was the happy meeting point of domestic traditions reaching back to the Middle Ages, the dynamic reception of foreign ideas, and political developments within the Habsburg Monarchy under the enlightened absolutism of 1765 to 1792. Nineteenth-century Hungarian liberals located the deepest native root of liberalism in the venerable tradition of ‘freedom-loving’, as articulated in speciic aspects of the legal-political system of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. hese included the ‘concept of the Holy Crown’ as sovereign authority; the system of autonomous counties; the privileges of the Orthodox population; the 1571 law of the Ideology, Society and Values 132 Zoltán Györe State Assembly of Transylvania (in Hungarian, Erdély) that granted equality to the four confessions (Calvinist, Lutheran, Catholic, and Unitarian); the decisions of the Hungrian State Assembly in 1608 that guaranteed religious freedom for Protestants; and the protections the medieval monarchy extended to non-Hungarian ethnic communities. he enlightened absolutism of Maria heresa and Emperor Joseph II from 1765 to 1792 also contributed to Hungarian liberalism. hose most directly interested in reform included the intelligentsia, the bourgeoisie, and the peasantry, while the nobility stressed the need to maintain the country’s sovereignty during a process of rapid change. In this respect, the rapid and profound reforms of Emperor Joseph II posed the greatest challenge. he progressive element among the nobility, along with the intelligentsia and the peasants, warmly welcomed the decrees of religious tolerance, the abolition of serfdom, and other steps toward social modernization. However, the measures which endangered Hungarian state sovereignty, or those that impinged upon the vital interests of the nobility, led to a signiicant deterioration in relations with the Habsburg court and gradually turned most Hungarians against their ruler. One dilemma facing Hungarian intellectuals was whether to accept Joseph’s reforms, or to oppose ‘German’ absolutism by emphasizing the importance of preserving the national language, culture, identity, and constitutionalism. Many members of the Hungarian intelligentsia, such as József Hajnóczy and Gergely Berzeviczy, preferred the path of civilized progress over protecting the nation. In time they realized that the absolutist assault upon the constitutional order could be counteracted most eiciently by broadening the constitutional base2. his was closely related to the idea of connecting overall progress with demands for liberal reform in a joint efort to protect the nation and its language and culture. Further development of this option evolved into one of the basic tenets of the concept of the ‘harmonization of interests’. he strong reform movement of 1789-92 among the nobility immediately before and ater the death of Joseph II also had its politically liberal elements. Its most prominent members, including József Hajnóczy, Ferenc Verseghy, Károly Koppi, and Gergely Berzeviczy, demanded that nobles renounce their privileges and abolish serfdom. hey also sought to encourage industry and trade, establish cottage industries, protect and develop science and art, and abolish ‘colonial’ relations between Vienna and Hungary. he creation of nine reform committees (deputatio regnicolaris) in the Hungarian National Assembly in 1790/1791 had far-reaching consequences for the development of liberalism. heir goal was to analyse and report upon the social, economic, and legal situation in Hungary. heir extensive labors included gathering valuable information at the territorial level and presenting a report which could be described as a proto-liberal synthesis3. However, in 1792 the court in Vienna, feeling pressured by the changing international situation, adopted a more conservative political stance and removed the reform plans from the agenda. hen, following the discovery of the Ignác Martinovics The Basis of the Reform Policy of the Hungarian Liberals in the Vormärz 133 conspiracy in 1795, the government subjected Hungary to a policy of absolutist repression. During the next two decades, reformist ideas could be expressed only in the sphere of culture, language, and literature. Reform leanings on the part of some of the nobility, intelligentsia, and middle-class citizens thus became connected to political opposition to the court, while liberalism became ever more closely associated with protecting the state institutions and national law of Hungary. here was also an economic side to these developments. In the context of the war against France, many Hungarian nobles realised that considerably greater income could be obtained from larger-scale industrial production than from feudal dues4. he feeling grew that a serious reorganization of industry and trade was being blocked by a narrow and rigid feudal system, as well as by the unequal position of Hungary in relation to other parts of the Habsburg Monarchy. Hence the growing perception that national and economic emancipation were mutually connected5. THE ADVOCATES OF THE ‘HARMONIZATION OF INTERESTS’ One of the most interesting features of Hungarian liberalism was that its advocates were mainly noble members of the Hungarian State Assembly who pressured for reform while knowing that it would mean losing some of their privileges6. hese men were, however, eager to reform the feudal state by constitutional means7. It goes without saying that not all noblemen were liberals, nor did liberal aristocrats support all of the reform proposals (for example, more of them supported oicial recognition of the Hungarian language than they did the abolition of noble privileges). However, it can be concluded that from 1830 to 1848, at least within the Lower House of the Hungarian Assembly, most delegates supported the liberal reforms. Nobility within the Kingdom of Hungary was a legal rather than a social category. In terms of property, profession, social status, and access to power, Hungarian nobles were diferentiated into multiple layers that were connected only by the shared privileges that distinguished them from the rest of the populace. In practical terms, the nobility could be seen as a conglomerate of the individuals who possessed ive privileges recognized by the state – ownership of land, the right to perform public functions, exemption from taxes, the right to habeas corpus and the right to vote – and who oicially igured in the lists of noblemen organized at county level. he approximately 400,000 noblemen of this period included about 2,000 magnates, 10,000 wealthy noblemen, and around 96,000 petty landowners. his group also comprised around 60,000 clerks, teachers, doctors, engineers, advocates, priests and army oicers, cratsmen, innkeepers, estate owners and members of county militias, in addition to 200,000 peasants8. Certain categories of non-aristocratic population such as merchants, cratsmen, lawyers, intellectuals, and even the better-of peasantry were better of in terms of material wealth and enjoyed higher social status than many members of the petty nobility. Ideology, Society and Values 134 Zoltán Györe We should not forget that numerous industrialists, doctors, engineers, oicers, salesmen, plant owners, and clerks became noblemen following the Peace Treaty of Szatmár [today’s Satu Mare, Romania] of 1711. Opening such channels for satisfying personal ambitions did much to prevent class rivalries and potential unrest in Hungary9. In practical terms, the hierarchy of the Hungarian nobility included numerous old and new social layers and professions whose members could be found in the third estate as in other nations, and which traditional historiography considers the bourgeois elements of society and advocates of middle-class views. his must be kept in mind when talking about the leading role the nobility played within the Hungarian ‘bourgeois’ transformation. his factor must also be combined with the high regard in which the Hungarian nobility was traditionally held. he aristocracy and upper layers of the nobility represented the most powerful social and political group in Hungary. hey owned most of the nation’s wealth and represented political and administrative authority. One must also keep in mind the important formal and informal contacts between the nobles and the Monarchy and armed forces. Apart from this, the nobles had forged their reputation during centuries of warfare against the Ottoman and Habsburg dynasties, and they were also the traditional sponsors of education and culture. Clearly, then, regardless of the economic pressure that the nobility exerted on the population under its inluence, its high degree of social acceptance and prestige was recognized by the majority of Hungarians10. HARMONIZING INTERESTS Ater 1825 the Viennese court adopted a somewhat milder stance towards the demands of the Hungarians, which led to more lively political life in Hungary following several decades of oppression. Historians suggest that the year 1830 was the point at which the Hungarian liberal opposition began to inluence events. his opposition presented itself to the public as a political force ready to promote middle-class reforms, including bringing change to the country’s legal system and social structure. Its members also argued that maintaining Hungary’s independence within the Austrian Empire required adopting a tough line toward the Imperial court in Vienna. he plans for reform necessarily crossed the frontiers of Hungary and unavoidably led to tensions with the court. Emperor Francis I believed that all power should be concentrated at the center, and opposed Hungarian autonomy. Liberal reforms would only increase the threat to the existing political system and to inter-ethnic relations within the Empire. Prominent igures at the court feared that Hungarian nationalism could enlame passions that were already developing on their own. On the other hand, ater the Congress of Vienna which eliminated the political and military threat from abroad, the Hungarian side felt it could no longer accept the permanent violation of the Hungarian constitution and the postponement of national and economic emancipation. The Basis of the Reform Policy of the Hungarian Liberals in the Vormärz 135 he liberals also professed their belief that the Habsburg Empire would be strengthened by implementing liberal reforms within Austria as well. he concept of the ‘harmonization of interests’ served as the ideological framework and central idea behind planned civic reform in Hungary. Its essence was the uniication or coordination of the interests of various social groups and communities in the process of social and institutional transformation. Emphasis was placed on preventing all possible conlicts that could originate from diferences among confessions (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Greek Catholic, Unitarian, and Jewish), ethnic groups (Hungarians, Slovakians, Rumanians, Germans, Croatians, Serbs, Jews, and others) and inally social classes. he Hungarian liberals did not want to suppress this pluralism. Instead, they looked to unifying these diferent interest groups around a single vision and common goal, that is, a program of middle-class reform. Implementing change in this coordinated fashion would, in principle, ensure greater support for liberal reforms and reduce the potential for opposition, above all from the Imperial court. he liberals envisioned an almost classless society, consisting mainly of a strong middle class, in which the great diferences between rich and poor would narrow11. According to the program of the liberals, this middle class would be open to all, thus maintaining the ideal of ‘one nation’12. Baron Miklós Wesselenyi’s work, Balitelétek [Misjudgements], published in 1834, can be considered the irst full-length articulation of the interest harmonization concept, while the words of Ferenc Kölcsei ‘freedom and property’ became its slogan13. According to Ferenc Deák, the greatest national virtue of the Hungarians up to that time was their determination to preserve the rights and liberties of their homeland, even if it cost them their lives. Both he and other statesmen saw the concept of harmonization of interests as another step in that direction. In his view, domestic industry needed to be developed, which would lead in turn to more middle-class spirit and diligence14. He argued that property and freedom are the most powerful incentives of industry, property and freedom are those sweet bonds that tie a city dweller most closely to the fate of his homeland...and when they are united, rather than disunited, around common interests and watch over their homeland, their king and laws, and when we are working together on the development of our country, only then will the obligation that we owe to our country and ourselves be fulilled 15. He looked on freedom as the rationale for citizens taking responsibility for social change. In a similar vein one of the leading Hungarian liberals, Lajos Kossuth, wrote in his diary on 25 February 1837 that “the United States of America is fortunate because with the unity of interests which originates in the unity of laws, they are able to ind a suicient number of ties to connect the heterogeneous entities into a single whole”. he concept of the harmonization of interests was promoted during the 1840s in “Pesti Hírlap” in particular. his magazine published Kossuth’s views on the formation of a Ideology, Society and Values 136 Zoltán Györe new social class of nobles and non-nobles which would be bound by a common liberal political program. He stressed that a nation is a political community, and that a selfgoverning environment is the proper framework for the exercise of political freedom. He emphasized that the basic principle of liberal government should be: “All for the people and all by the people. Nothing about the people without the people. hat is Democracy, and that is the ruling tendency of the spirit of our age” 16. THE LEGAL PREMISES When implementing their ideas the Hungarian liberals had to take into consideration the opposition of conservative elements and the political mood of the Viennese court, which tried to keep liberal ideas from spreading to other parts of the Empire. he socalled domestic ‘noble estates opposition’, which represented the more progressive wing of the Hungarian conservatives, considered that Hungarian national interests could be defended without impinging upon the rights of the nobility. In this context the Hungarian liberals opted for promoting the legal equality of all citizens by extending the existing privileges of the nobility to the peasantry and the citizenry at large, en lieu of depriving the nobles of their privileges. he liberals believed that the existing constitutional framework could be expanded to include the entire population, regardless of class, religion, or ethnicity. Moreover, by gaining these liberties, everyone would become interested in defending the new liberal constitution17. Count Charles La Motte, a minister of the Gömör County, stated the conservative position: “hey are saying that we will still be free even though our liberties will be extended to the people. But what is my freedom worth, if all the people are free? here can be no happy country without aristocracy, with the exception of the United States of America, not a single country provides an example of a free country without aristocracy. America is too young, so it cannot serve as an example”18. In his efort to promote the concept of the harmonization of interests, Mihály Boross wrote in his 1846 book Magyar panoráma árnyképekben [Hungarian Panorama in Sketches] that a law was not like wine or bread, but rather that it was “the God-given air which gives life to everyone even when thousands of people breathe it; it is like the sun as it shines its life-giving rays onto the millions. he larger the number of people the constitution rests upon, the greater the number of people who share the burden, the more people can enjoy well-being: that makes the constitution stronger, the burden lighter, and the unity and agreement greater”19. Wesselényi thought along very similar lines. He argued for the expansion of political rights to the broadest range of persons possible by claiming that liberties and rights were insecure if they were withheld from the majority of the population. Rather, they were irm and safe only if guarded over by the everwatchful eye of the nation. He also tried to calm those who feared for their property. Just The Basis of the Reform Policy of the Hungarian Liberals in the Vormärz 137 because the liberals were demanding the expansion of political freedoms and rights of ownership did not mean that they were demanding the division of property20. he leading Hungarian liberals assumed that legal equality meant a franchise based on popular sovereignty. hey claimed that the introduction of a system of proportional representation would have positive consequences for their plan to harmonize interests. However, they still thought that the potential for bribery demanded a comparatively high property threshold for voting. While accepting this, Kossuth pleaded that there should be no limitations favouring the rich. Nor, he argued, should the minimum requirement be as high as in France where, out of a total population of 32 million, only 180,000 men had the right to vote21. THE ABOLITION OF SERFDOM he question of the serfs had been on the agenda since the time of Joseph II and his edict of abolition. By the end of the 18th century, it was clear to the more progressive elements within the nobility that serfdom was unsustainable from an ethical point of view, in addition to being socially harmful and economically unproitable. However, Viennese absolutism blocked any progressive solution to the agrarian problem. he peasant issue was even more signiicant, because, as the liberals themselves noticed, around half of the peasantry was not of Hungarian nationality. hey thus looked to the abolition of serfdom as having the positive efect of integrating the peasantry into Hungarian society. In a speech regarding the interdependence between the bourgeoisie and national progress delivered in the Lower House of the Hungarian State Assembly in 1833, Ferenc Deák claimed that “the homeland is happy and developing only where the land is farmed by free hands; the nation is strong where free hands defend their property and independence”. He also emphasized that the condition for national welfare and greatness was personal freedom and that the progress of the entire community began with the happiness of the individual22. Naturally not everyone shared his opinion. When Pál Nagy suggested granting political representation to the peasants at a meeting of the Hungarian State Assembly in 1825, he was almost physically thrown out the door. One of the leading conservatives declared that he would rather be skinned alive than accept any burden that the peasant representatives would surely ask the nobility to assume23. he solution to the problem of freeing the serfs was complicated and involved signiicant long-term consequences. Above all, it had to be implemented in a way that would avoid harming either the peasants or the nobles. One solution which, it was widely believed, would satisfy both sides was to free the serfs while giving them rights to the land they worked. his would make them small landowners, who would then pay compensation to the former owners of the land. his idea prospered and a voluntary redemption of serf obligations was established by law in 1840. Even though there were many examIdeology, Society and Values 138 Zoltán Györe ples of contracts being drawn up for the redemption of peasant obligations, especially by members of the reformist nobility, it soon became apparent that most serfs did not have the funds needed to redeem their obligations, and so the state had to intervene on their behalf. he logical conclusion to this was that the obligatory eternal redemption of serf duties (kötelező örökváltság) would be handled and inanced by the state, which would compensate the landowners for the loss of their land and workforce in the form of one single payment. he idea that the state would take the lead in abolishing serfdom not only ran against the principle of laissez faire; it also ran into opposition at the Imperial court, which favoured neither the liberal reforms nor freeing the serfs. he liberals saw clearly that Hungary would need greater political and administrative authority in order for liberal legislation to succeed. Loosening ties with Vienna not only ran counter to court policy; a good part of the Hungarian aristocracy and parts of the nobility also opposed it. Moreover, it also bred mistrust among diferent nationalities, most notably among the Croatians, Serbs, and Rumanians. he deep divisions over this policy became evident in the turbulent events of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRY Apart from the concept of equality before the law and the emancipation of the serfs, the liberals envisioned that their policy of harmonization of interests would help develop industry. hey believed that there could be no bourgeoisie without industry, that is, that industrialisation and urbanization were the benchmarks of middle-class society. Signiicantly, there was little disagreement among the liberals over this. Rather, they agreed that a thorough restructuring of the economy was needed. his included the development of industry, the establishment of a modern banking system, and free trade. Once again, however, these reforms met with resistance at the court and among the conservative elements of society. Lajos Kossuth emphasized that, despite good intentions, the development of industry in Hungary would be impossible without a thorough change in public attitudes, which were colored by stereotypes and prejudices. Kossuth devoted close attention to the connection between politics and economy and he claimed that the form of government was crucial to determining the economy of the country. Alluding to the relations of the court with Hungary, he stressed that the policy of free trade between a country with a strong economy and a country with a weak economy was similar to the relationship between a barrel of wine and a waiter, who simply poured the wine out of the barrel whenever he wanted it. Kossuth concluded that a certain protection of the weaker national economies against the stronger ones was necessary. He thought that industrialization was not only a condition for the creation of a bourgeois society but also a condition for forming the nation, and stressed that every nation earned its wealth by hard work24. Knowing The Basis of the Reform Policy of the Hungarian Liberals in the Vormärz 139 that capital was essential for a strong economy, the liberals founded a system of lending banks designed to provide credit not only to businesses but also to small landowners25. THE NATIONALITY ISSUE Commenting upon Hungary in 1860, John Stuart Mill concluded that its population was a melting pot of diferent nationalities: Hungarians, Slovakians, Croats, Serbs, Rumanians, and Germans. He concluded that these nationalities could not be territorially separated and, therefore, the only solution was that they learn to live together under the same laws and with the same rights26. his came to be the essence of the liberals’ approach to the nationalities question when the sheer complexity of Hungary’s ethnic mix was brought home to liberal thinkers in the period from 1830 to 1848. Regardless of this multinational composition, few politicians disputed the notion of Hungarian hegemony. Ater all, it was the Hungarians who had created the state within the Carpathian basin in the 9th century and they were the ones who had fought for its survival against pressure from the Byzantine, Holy Roman, Habsburg, and Ottoman Empires. Furthermore, the legal and political system of the state was also recognizably Hungarian. Hungarian politicians thus argued that the state needed to preserve this Hungarian dominance within a unitary political system. In addition, they considered that, within the territory that belonged to the crown of Szt. István [Saint Stephen or Stephen I, the irst Hungarian king], only the Croats had the right to their own autonomous state. he Serbs and Romanians who had migrated into Hungary over the centuries were considered nationals of their respective homelands, whereas the remaining nations lacked statehood because they were not regarded as historical nations. A related issue was the response of non-Hungarians to these beliefs and the extent of their support for the idea of social and political integration within the framework of a Hungarian ‘political nation’. Until the 1840s the answer appeared to be positive for several reasons. Until the early 19th century, regardless of the ethnic group that they belonged to, the majority of the population maintained the so-called hungárus tudat or Hungarian consciousness. his meant an emphasis not on an ethnic, but rather a geopolitical and cultural sense of commonality. Furthermore, inter-ethnic relations had been relatively calm for a long time prior to the opening decades of the 19th century. On the other hand, several external factors aggravated circumstances. For example, the Imperial court fomented ethnic tensions as means of maintaining its control. Hungarian politicians also worried about the pan-Slavic tendencies of Russian foreign policy, which they saw as a threat to Hungary’s survival. Hungarian liberals faced three options. First, they could try to maintain Hungarian hegemony. Second, they could promote some form of federalism or, third, they could try to convince non-Hungarians that the Kingdom of Hungary was actually their home and that they should accept the citizenship framework. he liberals opted for the latter, Ideology, Society and Values 140 Zoltán Györe despite its risks: given the highly developed ethnic and national consciousness of the minority populations, it was debatable whether they would denounce their cultural and territorial demands in favour of unity. Some certainly felt that their objectives could be better achieved within the conines of their own communities. his was in harmony with Bertalan Szemere’s observation in 1843 that the Slavs leaned towards the despotic Russian Empire “because they [the Slavs] hold their nationality more important than their own freedom, because freedom lost can be regained, as opposed to nationality, which, once lost, disappears forever”27. It was even questionable whether the national concept of the Hungarian liberals was acceptable to the non-Hungarian people at all. During the reform period three interpretations of the term ‘nation’ mixed together in the minds of both liberals and Hungarians at large. he geopolitical understanding had been present in Hungary since the 13th century, and it regarded the nation to be a population group endowed with statehood. However, that deinition also contained an emotional component, in that it also looked on nationhood as a collective belief of a group of citizens who look on the territory of a state as their own homeland and are prepared to manifest this sentiment. A second, ethnic interpretation deined the nation in terms of the Hungarian language and the cultural and ethnical distinctiveness of the Hungarian people. Historically this approach appeared in 15th century in reaction to the dangers which threatened the Kingdom of Hungary from the outside. Finally there was the feudal estate or public-legislative conception, formulated as a political concept in the early 16th century. he nucleus of the estate conception was the theory of the transfer of power from the people as a whole to the estate of nobles and from it further on to the crown of Szt. István, i.e. through the coronation of the King28. According to this deinition, the nobility represents the nation in legal and political terms, even if the nation in the broader sense comprises the entire population of the country. he notion of a unique Hungarian (political) nation took hold during the irst half of 19th century, as a result of the fusion of all three concepts. he Hungarian liberal opposition considered that the survival of a multinational Hungary required the successful implementation of the harmonization of interests concept. he liberals hoped that guaranteeing individual freedoms and equality before the law would attract non-Hungarians to these shared political and national values. hey also hoped that, in the long run, non-Hungarians would be integrated into the framework of the Hungarian nation. hus Wesselényi concluded that given the many prejudices among the Hungarian people, only equality of all people before the law, regardless of their nationality and religious ailiation, would create the necessary cohesion for a successful state. He condemned propaganda and discrimination on the basis of national and religious afiliation, even in the form of jokes, and argued that only a mutual and conscious efort towards toleration could counteract negative sentiments. He also emphasized that only international unity could make Hungary a strong and prosperous country29. The Basis of the Reform Policy of the Hungarian Liberals in the Vormärz 141 Bertalan Szemere asserted that the three main goals of the liberals in the pre-revolutionary period were the reform of the political system, the provision of individual rights, and the creation of conditions for the free development of nationality. In regard to the latter, he stressed that “nationalism (the development of national emotions and virtues) is not the goal but rather the means of freedom, just like freedom is not a goal, but a means of perfecting bourgeois virtues; and that for the development of nationality, no other consideration whatsoever should be limited, but the unity of the state, as well as the provision of appropriate, rapid, and accurate public administration”30. To secure the agreement of the court and the conservative element the liberals explained that the constitutional borders of the country would be respected and that no one’s rights would be revoked or limited. In the new natio Hungarica, not only the nobility but the country’s entire population, regardless of its ethnic, religious, or social orientation, would form a part of the political nation. In this the liberals relied heavily upon the fact that many members of the Hungarian nobility had Slav, German, Romanian, or some other ethnic origin and had themselves assimilated into the Hungarian state on the basis of common interests and freedoms. It was expected that much time would be required to realize the vision of non-Hungarian assimilation, but that it would in the end be a non-violent process31. Ultimately, the liberals saw the consolidation of a middle-class society transformation as the key to creating the conditions by which Hungary could become a special melting pot for its diverse peoples. Kossuth stressed that “the holiness of a private sphere should not be touched with profane hands.” He also added that “any violent thoughts are to be put aside [although] we have the right, in our homeland, to long for all the branches of the public administration to develop in Hungarian. hat much is enough, more than that is neither just nor legal”32. he Hungarian liberals also hoped that providing other national groups access to all branches of government would motivate them to learn Hungarian33. To a great extent the hopes for the gradual assimilaton of non-Hungarians depended on overcoming their fear of the Hungarian state and the threat assimilation posed to the existence of their own nation. he ethnic-geopolitical position and historical experience of the Hungarians obviously inluenced liberal thought, as did Herder’s well-known prophecies that the Hungarian language and the Hungarians themselves would disappear without a trace within the next century or two, thanks to their absorption either by their larger neighbours or by more numerous ethnic groups, such as the Germans, Slavs, or Romanians. To be sure, attempts to Germanize Hungary were not lacking in the past; note, for example, the impact of the migration of approximately one million Germans into Hungary during the 18th century. Similarly, during the 17th and 18th centuries, the Romanians conquered large areas of Hungary and became the dominant ethnic group in Transylvania, while the Serbs conquered portions of southern Hungary from the 15th to the 18th centuries. Finally, one could not overlook the inluence on Hungarian public opinion of the philo-Russian sympathies of the Slavs. All these Ideology, Society and Values 142 Zoltán Györe developments, along with the isolation of Croats and Serbs from the administration of the Kingdom of Hungary, combined with the inluence of Vienna to convince the Hungarians that both they and their ancient state were endangered, and that a gradual and non-violent process of ‘Hungarianization’ was the best means of protection. Still, from the point of view of the non-Hungarian populace, this slow and non-violent process could be seen as an act of aggression directed against their own national selfdetermination. he Hungarian liberals did not expect any support for their harmonization concept from the Croats. As for the Serbs and Romanians, whose national elites already planned to found their states in the territory of southern Hungary and Transylvania, they were extremely reserved, as were the Slovakian nationalists. Ongoing resistance to the harmonization of interests policy found expression in the support certain national county assemblies extended to the government or, more precisely, the Habsburg court. It was equally telling that the districts of Bács-Bodrog, Árva, Krassó, Túróc, Szepes, Szerém, Pozsega and Verőce never chose a liberal representative to the Hungarian State Assembly34. However, it should be taken into account that not everyone backed these national-political ‘management’ policies. he Jews and the Germans in Hungary mostly supported the Hungarian liberal opposition (unlike most of the Germans in Hungary proper, the Saxons in Transylvania demanded territorial separation)35. Even though the liberal policy of the Hungarian opposition, as conceived from the nationalist perspective, was always irmly against the demands of non-Hungarian groups, it still provided them with an eicient resistance towards the Hungarianisation policy. he liberals’ insistence upon the consolidation of middle-class society, along with civic and political guarantees, opened the way for some speciic gains, such as freedom of the press, conscience, speech, public assembly, and the operation of political parties. ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE PRE-REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD he Hungarian liberals’ high point of success for their reform programme took place during the revolutionary disturbances of March and April 1848. Aware of the need to build public support, the reformers felt they had little alternative to adopting a moderate, gradualist approach until late 1846. hat year and the following marked a turn toward radicalization and more determined eforts to push reforms, which culminated in the creation of a ‘Party of Opposition’ which in turn provoked greater resistance among conservative political forces. Regarding the nationalist element of the reform programme, a law for the reintegration into Hungary of a so-called Partium (a district on the western border of Transylvania) was proposed, along with legislation which gradually introduced Hungarian into oicial usage in Hungary in 1844, and in Erdély in 1847. A measure obliging even the nobility to pay the toll on a newly planned bridge (Lánchid) between Buda and Pest was The Basis of the Reform Policy of the Hungarian Liberals in the Vormärz 143 well-received by the public, although by undermining the century-long right of the nobility to avoid taxation the law had more of a psychological than a inancial impact36. Regarding the serfs, the laws the Diet issued in 1836 brought many advantages. Alienation of serf properties was authorized, certain obligations were abolished, the competence of the feudal courts (sedes dominialis) was limited, and the right of villages to be self-governing was strengthened. In 1840, a law permitting the voluntary, permanent ransom of peasant obligations was introduced, followed four years later by a measure opening governmental posts to non-nobles, regardless of their religious ailiation. Freedom of trade and industry was promoted through laws relating to: the judicial process (1836); bonds, traic, private businesses, the legal status of factories, merchants, and shareholding companies (1840); the regulation of rivers (1840); and public construction (1844). 1830 saw the founding of the Livestock Farming Society (Állattenyésztő Társaság). he following year regular steamboat service started between Vienna and Budapest, and in 1846, steamboat traic began on Lake Balaton. he irst public savings company in Hungary – the Országos Takarékpénztár (OTP Bank) – opened in 1840, with the humanitarian goal of helping to alleviate poverty37. Two years later, the Pesti Magyar Kereskedelmi Bank (Hungarian Trading Bank in Budapest) was founded. Further steps promoting economic development included the foundation of the Hungarian Industrial Society (Magyar Iparegyesület) in 1841. hree years later, Kossuth inaugurated the Industry Protection Association (Védegylet). A visible mark of civic progress was the announcement of the partial emancipation of Jews, followed by the establishment of the irst telegraph line between Vienna and Pozsony (Pressburg or Bratislava) in December 1846, as well as the opening of the Szolnok-Budapest railway line in September 1847. he Lower House of the Diet endorsed the abolition of capital punishment in 1843, which attracted considerable attention from liberal circles elsewhere in Europe38. he Hungarian Scientiic Academy, the National heatre, the Hungarian Military Academy, and the National Museum were all founded in these years. he renewal and standardization of the Hungarian language was also completed, a national anthem created, and a plethora of popular and scientiic magazines of major signiicance began publication. In the pre-revolutionary period count István Széchényi became especially known for his practical measures in favour of liberal ideals. As early as 1827, at the beginning of his exuberant political and public life, he founded the irst casino (social circle) in Hungary, along with other important organizations expounding liberal and reformist views. His projects included encouraging the modernization and beautiication of the capital city. To this end he promoted the construction of the famous bridge between Pest and Buda, as well as a tunnel in Buda. He also promoted dredging the Danube River bed in the Đerdap Gorge, and oversaw the works regulating the low of the Tisza River. Ater inaugurating steamboat service on both the Danube and Tisza, he founded a shipyard Ideology, Society and Values 144 Zoltán Györe and winter harbour in Pest, encouraged the cultivation of silkworms and horse breeding (and racing), the construction of railways, and the building of the Vukovar-Rijeka railway line39. We have listed some of the greatest achievements of the pre-revolutionary period in Hungary, which can be attributed to the creativity, perseverance, and ability of the liberals to act when needed. Numerous progressive initiatives were frustrated by opposition from the Imperial court and conservative forces, but one could hardly ignore this lurry of initiatives and their impact on the political, social, cultural and economic life of the Kingdom of Hungary. he revolution of 1848 was to bring even greater change. THE REVOLUTION OF 1848: THE HIGH POINT OF HUNGARIAN LIBERALISM he culmination of Hungarian liberal activism was the Revolution and the war for independence of 1848/49. he irony here is that the liberals achieved their greatest successes in a way they had always wanted to avoid, through revolution. he revolution in Hungary, however, was not a product of the moment. Rather, it represented the result of decades of persistent and well thought out liberal reform activity. Revolutionary movements in the rest of Europe played a signiicant role in precipitating events, along with the fact that the Hungarian State Assembly was in session at that precise time. he Assembly was the scene of vigorous debate between the conservatives and the opposition over the liberal programme, but it was the liberals, helped by the revolutionary triumphs in Paris and Vienna, who won the day. Under the pressure of revolutionary agitation in the rest of the Austrian Empire, the Emperor and King Ferdinand acknowledged the reforms of the Hungarian State Assembly. heir enforcement brought even deeper changes to the Hungarian Kingdom and altered its relationship with the dynasty. he laws of 1848 meant in practice that the new Hungarian constitution was based on liberal-bourgeois and not feudal foundations. heir enforcement opened the door to further promotion of democratic and social change. A law for the total abolition of serfdom was approved, although the question of compensation for noblemen was let for more peaceful times. Yeomen obtained their houses and farmsteads, while serfs without homes were freed from their labor obligations. All men were declared equal in the eyes of the law and no one was exempted from having to pay taxes. Mandatory tithes (decima) and censorship were abolished. he people were given the freedom to profess the Protestant and Orthodox religions, as well as the right to education. he liberal political system was ensured by laws based upon national sovereignty and the transformation of the feudal noble-county system into a civic administration overseen by a system of national representation. Laws were introduced making government accountable to Parliament. A National Guard was formed, freedom of speech, association, and the press was proclaimed, and censorship laws were abolished. The Basis of the Reform Policy of the Hungarian Liberals in the Vormärz 145 he Hungarian Kingdom obtained broad autonomy in its relations with the other parts of the Austrian Empire. It was ruled that the Emperor’s orders could be implemented only on the condition that they be endorsed by at least one Hungarian minister. he union of Erdély and Hungary was declared, and the power of the newly formed government was extended into Croatia. Also, during the absence of the King (i.e. while he was in Vienna), his prerogatives were to be executed by the Palatine (at that time Archduke Stephen of Habsburg), which practically gave Hungary its own chief of state. he statutory and legal ties between Hungary and other parts of the Austrian Empire were reduced to a personal union. Hungary became an independent country, with its own parliament, budget, and ministries, including the Ministry of Armed Forces and Foreign Afairs. Plans were devised to reform the centuries-old state governing bodies, the judiciary, the legislative branch, and the functioning and jurisdiction of the municipalities. Under pressure from revolutionary events both at home and abroad, Emperor Ferdinand I named count Lajos Batthyány, an opposition aristocrat, Prime Minister of the Hungarian government. He also sanctioned the new laws on 11 April, the day the last session of the State Assembly met40. he so-called ‘March laws’ meant that the bloodless revolution in Hungary achieved the social, national, and political demands for which the Hungarian liberal opposition had fought for decades. he new legislation provided for the country’s development as an independent, liberal, and unitary state. As a result Hungary met the conditions for entry into the club of developed European countries, even if further legislation still needed to be passed by the future Hungarian Parliament in order to guarantee more thorough oversight of the middle-class reform program. Other pending tasks included reimbursing the nobility and codifying the new civil law. Hungarian political circles enjoyed a brief moment of optimism, even enthusiasm. Indeed, looking back from later events, some historians argue that the Hungarian liberals were too successful in 184841. Of course, it was clear even to the Hungarian liberals themselves that lasting success depended not only on the course of events but also the ability of the Hungarian government to use the moment wisely. Enforcing all these laws demanded a stable political and security situation, as well as long months of hard work. Furthermore, the liberal leadership understood that passing the reform laws did not mean the end of legislative activity, but that additional eforts would be needed, especially measures favouring the poorer sections of society. At the Assembly on 7 April 1848, one of the most inluential Hungarian liberals, Ferenc Deák, warned that the new government would keep the trust of the people only if it worked to ensure investments and jobs and if it organised industry in a way that would improve the lives of the poor42. he liberals strongly stressed the fact that the revolution took place with no bloodshed or internal conlict. In the early days of March the revolution was greeted by almost all the population, even the non-Hungarians. Still, the new government realized that fulilling social part of its agenda required further commitment to its concept of harmonization of interests. However, it soon appeared that precisely those revolutionary circumstances Ideology, Society and Values 146 Zoltán Györe that had led to such extraordinary results also made implementing the liberal programme diicult if not impossible. Enthusiasm led some politicians to make demands that the government could not allow. At the same time, spokesmen for some of the non-Hungarian national communities introduced new political and territorial demands. Apart from agrarian and national problems, the Hungarian government had to deal with the attitude of the Imperial court towards the enforcement and implementation of the March laws. At a secret meeting on 26 March 1848, court circles decided that the ruling house had no choice but to show a friendly attitude towards Batthyány’s government, but when its position improved it would immediately launch a military attack against Hungary43. In line with that decision, the court adopted an equivocal policy towards the Hungarian government until September when it started its military intervention. It more or less openly refused to hand over jurisdiction over army and foreign afairs to the Hungarian government. Resistance in the court and on the part of some non-Hungarian nationalities, the desire of the poorest layers of society to further extend the revolution, as well as the intervention of foreign political and military factors, created favourable conditions for undermining the Hungarian liberal government. As a result, whole regions, including the Military Frontier, Croatia, and the territories controlled by the Serbians and Romanians, refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Hungarian government. he greatest challenge to the Hungarian revolutionaries and their harmonization policy came from national demands. In the irst days ater the revolution in Pest and Buda on 15 March 1848, the non-Hungarian population enthusiastically greeted the revolution and its results. However, the political leaders of the nationalities judged that the revolutionary situation ofered certain possibilities for achieving some of their most ambitious aims. Presentation of these new demands caught the Hungarian government of guard. Most of the demands related to national status and proportional representation in the future State Assembly. However, the Croats and Serbs demanded administrative and territorial separation from Hungary; while the Romanians sought territorial autonomy (some of them even demanded union with Moldavia and Wallachia). he Jews, Germans, and Ruthenians remained loyal to the Hungarian government. he Slovaks expressed moderate nationalist demands and in fact more Slovaks took part in the war on the side of the Hungarians, than as members of the Slovak Legion which fought against it 44. he Hungarian government was ready to meet nationalist demands in the areas of culture and religion, but refused to extend the status of separate nation to the Serbs, Slovaks, and Romanians. he Croats were ofered state ties on the level of a personal union or, at worst, separation from the Hungarian Kingdom. Contemporary liberals believed that nations had the right to a separate state, and that acknowledging the status of a nation required recognizing the above-mentioned nations as having the right to their own states. his raised in practical terms the issue of the history of Hungary’s federalization, along with the possibility that the diverse national territories might, given favourable conditions, separate from the Kingdom. But at this juncture Hungary refused to accept such a solution. The Basis of the Reform Policy of the Hungarian Liberals in the Vormärz 147 Having realized the severity of the problem, the Hungarian government promised that the outstanding agrarian and national issues would be solved at the irst session of the new State Assembly, convoked for mid July 1848. However, Parliament had to meet under unexpected war conditions. June saw uprisings by Serbs and Rumanians, while in early September, the Imperial army started its military intervention, and a year later it was joined by a large Russian army. In this context Hungarian politicians concentrated upon the country’s defence and could not properly solve these pending issues. Hungary’s defeat in 1849 turned the wheel of history backwards, along with all plans to implement the reform of the legal, political, and social systems. Hungarian statesmen could return to dealing these important issues, as well as with new and pressing problems of agrarian, social, and national issues, only ater the Austro-Hungarian Settlement of 1867, which was marked by substantially more unfavourable conditions than those prevailing in 1848 and 1849. CONCLUSIONS Generally speaking, if the harmonization of interests concept is judged in light of the events of 1848 and 1849, one can argue that it was partially successful. he interests of the liberal nobility, intelligentsia, bourgeois elements of society, and the educated strata among youth that were uniied in the pre-revolutionary era weathered even the greatest threats of the revolutionary era. Moreover, in 1848 and 1849 these foundations were further consolidated by the revolution’s achievements, especially given the support shown by the peasantry and by some among the non-Hungarian peoples. Political freedom, equality before the law, a liberal administration, and the abolition of serfdom were decreed. hese and other changes in the political and social system were backed by most of the population, except for certain parts of the nobility and aristocracy. Agrarian issues were far more problematical. Peasant demands went beyond the statutory abolition of feudalism. he Hungarian government responded by enacting new laws to expand the initial reforms for the beneit of the poor. However, given the conditions of the time, it was not viable to divide up the land, as the poorest hoped for. Still, when the imperial army intervened against the Hungarian government, the peasantry in Hungary did not turn against the nobility, but massively and decisively stood in defense of liberal reforms45. Indeed, the participation of the population in the Hungarian revolution was so strong that it took an entire year to defeat, and only then with massive military aid from the Russians. he harmonization of interests produced the poorest results in regard to relations between Hungarians and non-Hungarians. However, even in this ield it did not completely fail. he main obstacles were the policy of gradual incorporation of the non-Hungarian communities and the fact that some of these, beginning in the late 18th century, developed their own national-political programs based on the demand for separate national territories. Middleclass reform was important both to the progressive elements of the non-Hungarian ethnic communities and to the Hungarians. However, some of the former, such as the Croats, Ideology, Society and Values 148 Zoltán Györe Serbs, and Romanians, thought that it was the Hungarians who stood to gain the most from such changes. hey also believed that the reforms would only guarantee Hungarians separate nation status within the context of the Habsburg Monarchy. For this reason the Croat, Serb, and Romanian political elites did not promote looser ties between the Hungarian Kingdom and the court in Vienna. What is more, the Serbs, Croats, and Romanians did not accept the sovereignty of the Hungarian liberal government, while most Romanians opposed the union of Transylvania with Hungary. As a result, the Serbs and Romanians organised armed resistance against the revolutionary Hungarian government. As for the Jews, Germans, and Ruthenians, they felt that they did not meet the proper conditions for territorial autonomy and, therefore, supported both the reforms and the revolution. Hungarian politicians were genuinely surprised that non-Hungarian politicians superimposed their nationalist programme over the social and liberal one. Bertalan Szemere, in his post-revolutionary memoirs, underscored that the newly formed Hungarian government did not take speciic steps in regard to the nationalities issue in Hungary, believing that the abolition of serfdom, legal equality, and political freedom were suicient guarantees and that, therefore, speciic measures for national rights were not needed46. In conclusion, we could state that the harmonization of interests concept proved to be a dynamic and interconnected system of liberal ideas. It developed over a long period at the hands of at least two generations of intellectuals and politicians, who sought to discover theoretical and practical opportunities for the bourgeois transformation of society. Its advantages and disadvantages became apparent during the Vormärz and the revolution of 1848/1849. hen it became clear that well thought-out, persistent, multilayered, and united political action could, even in unfavourable conditions at the national and international level, successfully change the entire constitutional and social system. he role and the signiicance of the revolution in the long term success of the liberal programme are issues that require further research. he fact is that revolutionary conditions allowed the liberals to succeed, but that they also unleashed a reaction that postponed reform for another twenty years. However, during this intervening period, speciic aspects of the liberal programme, such as general taxation, abolition of serfdom, secure property rights, and equality before the law were implemented even within the framework of absolutism. On the other hand, the liberal solutions of 1848 not only became less democratic ater 1867. hey even appeared somewhat obsolete in the atmosphere of the Ausgleich, which more or less halted the development of a more democratic system. The Basis of the Reform Policy of the Hungarian Liberals in the Vormärz 149 NOTES 1 A. Gergely, A magyar reformellenzék kialakulása és megszilárdulása, 1830-1840, in Gy. Mérei (ed.), Magyarország története, 1790-1848, Budapest 1983, vol. II, p. 700. 2 I.Z. Dénes, Politikai szabadság és politikai közösség viszonya Kossuth értelmezésében, in “Világosság”, 2003, pp. 5-6. 3 K. Kecskeméti, A magyar történelem kulcsszava: a pluralizmus, in “Magyar Tudomány”, 2007, 6, pp. 778779. 4 J. Veliky, A forradalomtól irtózó reformerek, in “Rubicon”, 1991, 6, p. 27. 5 Z. Györe, Gradovi i varoši Bačke početkom 19.veka, Novi Sad 2007, p. 33. 6 Z. Fónagy (ed.), Wesselényi Miklós, Budapest 1998, pp. 62-63. 7 A. Gergely, A reformkor. A polgári átalakulás programja, in “Rubicon”, 1996, 3. Note that all volumes of the historical journal “Rubicon” from 1990 to 2000 are now available in DVD format as “DVD könyvtár III, történelem”. 8 Kecskeméti, A magyar történelem megértésének kulcsszava cit., p. 778. 9 Ibid., pp. 777-778. 10 L. Tőkéczky (ed.), Magyar liberaliznus, Budapest 1993, pp. 511-512. 11 A. Gergely, A 19. századi német és magyar liberalizmus párhuzamai, in “Magyar Tudomány”, 2008, 1, p. 29. 12 J. Szentpéteri (ed.), Magyar kódex, Reformkor és kiegyezés, 1790-1867, Budapest - Gyula 2000, pp. 26-30. 13 L. Kiss, Deák nemzetfelfogása 1848 előtt, in “Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Agriensis Nova Series”, 2004, XXXI, Section. Historiae Eger; Internet version at http://tortenelem.ektf.hu/efolyoirat/Kiss/6.htm. 14 I.Z. Dénes, Politikai szabadság és politikai közösség viszonya Kossuth értelmezésében, in “Világosság”, 2003, 132. 15 M. Kónyi (ed.), Deák Ferencz beszédei, 1829-1847, Budapest 1882, vol. I, p. 276; Gergely, A magyar reformellenzék cit., pp. 699-704. 16 his is the deinition which Abraham Lincoln heard in a lecture Kossuth gave in Columbus, Ohio and partly inspired his famous sentence in the Gettysburg Address of 19 November 1863: “Government of the people, by the people and for the people”. See I.Z. Dénes, A magyar liberalizmus klasszikusainak szellemi öröksége, in “Világosság”, 2003, 5-6, p. 45. 17 Id., A magyar liberálisok szellemi horizontja és értékvilága, 1830-1848, in Id. (ed.), Szabadság és nemzet, Budapest 1993, p. 130. 18 I. Barta (ed.), Kossuth Lajos összes munkái, Országgyűlési tudósítások, Budapest 1949, vol. III, p. 719; Gergely, A Magyar reformellenzék cit., vol. II, p. 709; Id., A reformkor cit. 19 Zs. Luchmann, A táblabírói Magyarország. A megyei közélet visszásságai a reformkori életképekben, in “Forrás”, 1999, February; Internet version http://www.forrasfolyoirat.hu/9902/luch.html. 20 Z. Fónagy (ed.), Wesselényi Miklós, Budapest 1998, pp. 62-63. 21 Veliky, A forradalomtól irtózó reformerek cit., p. 12. 22 Kiss, Deák nemzetfelfogása 1848 előtt cit.; Kónyi (ed.), Deák Ferencz beszédei I cit., p. 99. 23 E. Niederhauser, Talleyrand, Metternich, Szekszárd 2004, p. 254. 24 J. Veliky, A polgári fejlődés fokmérője, in “Rubicon”, 1992, 2. 25 Gy. Vargha, Magyarország pénzintézetei, Budapest 1885, p. 22; A magyar korona országainak hitelintézetei 1894-ben, in “Magyar Statisztikai Közlöny Új Folyam”, 1897, XVI, p. 42. 26 M. Freeden, Szabadság és identitás, in “Magyar Tudomány”, 2008, 1, p. 12; J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government, London - New York 1910, p. 363. Ideology, Society and Values 150 Zoltán Györe 27 R. Hermann (ed.), Szemere Bertalan, Budapest 1998, pp. 100-101. 28 According to this concept political power has its origins in the Holy Crown, not in the person of the king. hus an individual could have power as king only ater being coronated with the Holy Crown, in preciselydeined circumstances and with the proper ceremony, and not by the dynastic right of a monarch. hus only the Crown is holy, not the king. One implication is that subjects pledged loyalty to the Crown, i.e. to the state, and not to the King. his theory had far-reaching and positive consequences under Ottoman rule and the partition of the Kingdom of Hungary into three parts (Royal Hungary, the territories annexed to the Ottoman Empire, and Transylvania). 29 M. Wesselényi, Balitéletekről, Leipzig 1833; Z. Fónagy, Wesselényi Miklós, Budapest 1999, pp. 84-86. 30 Hermann (ed.), Szemere Bertalan cit., p. 113. 31 J. Galántai, Nemzet és kissebség Eötvös József életművében, Budapest 1995, p. 8. 32 “Pesti Hírlap”, 1841, 94. 33 Gergely, A. századi német cit., p. 31. 34 Kecskeméti, A magyar történelem megértésének kulcsszava cit., p. 782. 35 D. Kosáry, Újjáépítés és polgárosodás 1711-1867, Budapest 1990, p. 280. 36 T. Pal, Дуги деветнаести век, in P. Rokai, Z. Ðere, T. Pal, A. Kasaš, Историја Мађара, Belgrade 2002, p. 426; B. Kálmán (ed.), Magyarország Történeti Kronológiája, Budapest 1983, vol. III, p. 646; Gergely, A reformkor. A polgári átalakulás programja cit. 37 Vargha, Magyarország pénzintézetei cit., pp. 24-25. 38 Kecskeméti, A magyar történelem megértésének kulcsszava cit., p. 782. 39 P. Krestić, Мађарско-српска прожимања током прве половине века: пример Стефана Сечењија, in B. Kovaček, R. Lastić (eds.), Из историје српско-мађарских културних веза. A szerb-magyar kulturális kapcsolatok történetéböl, Újvidék [Novi Sad] - Budapest 2003, pp. 102-103. 40 P. Hanák (ed.), Egy ezredév, Budapest 1986, pp. 190-191. 41 Gergely, A 19. századi német cit., pp. 30-31. 42 Id., Ferenc Deák 1848-ban, in “Magyar Tudomány”, 2003, 12, p. 1544. 43 Hanák (ed.), Egy ezredév cit., p. 191. 44 Gy. Spira, Polgári forradalom 1848-1849, in E. Kovács (main editor), Magyarország története 1848-1890, Budapest 1987, pp. 292-293. 45 Gergely, A reformkor. A polgári átalakulás programja cit. 46 B. Szemere, Szemere Bertalan miniszterelnök emlékiratai az 1848/49- iki magyar kormányzat nemzetiségi politikájáról, Budapest 1941, p. 76. The Basis of the Reform Policy of the Hungarian Liberals in the Vormärz 151 BIBLIOGRAPHY Arató E., A magyarországi nemzetiségek nemzeti ideológiája, Budapest 1983. Id., A nemzetiségi kérdés története Magyarországon, 1790-1848, Budapest 1960. Bácskai V., Towns and Urban Society in Early Nineteenth-Century Hungary, Budapest 1989. Barta I., Sinkovics I. (eds.), Kossuth Lajos összes munkái, 15 vols., Budapest 1948-1961. Bona G., Szerbek és magyarok a Duna mentén 1848-49-ben. Tanulmányok a szerb-magyar kapcsolatok körébõl, Budapest 1983. Id., he Hungarian Revolution and War of Independence, 1848-1849, New York 1999. Dénes I.Z. (ed.), Szabadság és nemzet, Budapest 1993. Ember Gy., Heckenast G. (eds.), Magyarország története 1686-1790, Magyarország története tíz kötetben, IV, 1-2, Budapest 1989. Fónagy Z. (ed.), Wesselényi Miklós, Budapest 1999. Fried I. (ed.), Szerbek és magyarok a Duna mentén. II. Tanulmányok a szerb-magyar kapcsolatok körébõl, (18481867), Budapest 1987. Gergely A., Spira Gy., Sashegyi O. (eds.), Széchenyi István válogatott művei, 3 vols., Budapest 1991. Gyáni G., Kövér Gy., Magyarország társadalomtörténete a reformkortól a II. világháborúig, Budapest 2001. Hermann R., Az 1848-1849. A szabadságharc hadtörténete, Budapest 2001. Honvári J. (ed.), Magyarország gazdaságtörténete, Budapest 2003. Kecskeméti K., A magyar liberalizmus, 1790-1848, Budapest 2008. Kemény G.G., A magyar nemzetiségi kérdés története I. rész. A nemzetiségi kérdés a törvények és tervezetek tükrében 1790-1918, Budapest 1946. Komlos J., Economic Development in the Habsburg Monarchy in the 19th Century, New York 1983. Kontler L., A History of Hungary: Millennium in Central Europe, New York 2002. Kónyi M. (ed.), Deák Ferencz beszédei, 6 vols., Budapest 1882-1897. Kosáry D.G., Culture and Society in Eighteenth Century Hungary, Budapest 1988. Kosáry D., Újjáépítés és polgárosodás, 1711-1867, Budapest 1990. Kovaček B., Lastić R. (eds.), Из историје српско-мађарских културних веза. A szerb-magyar kulturális kapcsolatok történetéböl, Újvidék [Novi Sad] - Budapest 2003. Mazsu J., he Social History of the Hungarian Intelligentsia, 1825-1914, New York 1997. Mérei Gy. (ed.), Magyarország története, 1790-1848, Magyarország története tíz kötetben, 2 vols., Budapest 1983. Molnár M., A Concise History of Hungary, Cambridge 2001. Romsics I., Kiraly B.K., Geopolitics in the Danube Region: Hungarian Reconciliation Eforts, 1848-1998, Budapest 1999. Szabad Gy., A polgárosodás útján. Tanulmányok a magyar reformkorról, Budapest 1991. Szemere B., Szemere Bertalan miniszterelnök emlékiratai az 1848/49- iki magyar kormányzat nemzetiségi politikájáról, Budapest 1941. Szentpéteri J. (ed.), Magyar kódex, Reformkor és kiegyezés, 1790-1867, Budapest - Gyula 2000. Tőkéczky L. (ed.), Magyar liberaliznus, Budapest 1993. Urbán A. (ed.), Gróf Batthyány Lajos miniszterelnöki, hadügyi és nemzetőri iratai, 2 vols., Budapest 2001. Varga J., A Hungarian Quo Vadis: Political Trends and heories in the Early 1840s, Budapest 1994. Ideology, Society and Values