Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bónis György, The Hungarian Feudal Diet (13th-18th Centuries)

    Uploaded by

    Nagy Balazs
    44 views11 pages

    Original Title

    Bónis György, The Hungarian Feudal Diet (13th—18th Centuries)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    44 views11 pages

    Bónis György, The Hungarian Feudal Diet (13th-18th Centuries)

    Uploaded by

    Nagy Balazs

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 11
    xT THE HUNGARIAN FEUDAL DIET (a3th — 18th CENTURIES) by Gyérgy Béxts Batt 1. GENERAL REMARKS* Hungarian feudalism, born in the tenth century struggles © betweer the wealthy and the common members of the tribal society, entered its early phase with the establishment of the Kingdon (A. D. 1000) and was developed entirely in the thiz- teenth century. Since then, Hungarian society was characterized by the dualism of the feudal ruling class (prelates, barons and noblemen) and the great bulk of the villains (jabbdp) subjected to them, while the citizens remained at the margin of society, as it ‘were. The basic social relationships were left unchanged even after the loss of Hungerian independence following the batle of Mohdcs (1526) aad the establishment of Hapsburg rule. It wss only at the end of the eighteenth century that the rudiments of capitalism began to develop in the interstices ofthe ancien rigime, leading to its breakdown in the bourgeois revolution of 1848/49. Itis customary ‘and also justified to divide this long period of eight and a half ‘centuries to a phase of development and flourishing til 1526, and that of decay and dissolution after this year. Dealing with "See aote on sources and erature on page 506, 1» 288 crOncy sésis representative institutions, we have to consider them under these two heads. Te follows ftom the plan of comparative investigation that we must focus cur attention on representative government in Hungary between the thirteenth and the eighteenth centuries. ‘The state, founded by the revolutionary measures of Stephen I (2000-1058) and transformed to a bourgeois state in 1848, was an instrument of power in the hands of the feudal ruling class all the time. King and council in the prime of the Middle Ages, king and the organs of government (dicasteria) in the centuries of Hapsburg rule, derived their power from God and veiled it by a special theory of the state, the theory of the Holy Crown from the fifteenth eentury onwards. But when the worse came to the ‘worst, when the subjugated massess revolted against the estab- lished order (as in 1437, 1514, or in the local peasant upheavals of the eighteenth century), it became clear that the power was ‘wielded in the interests of the landowners and against the tillers of the soil. In speaking of representative instirations we must never forget that the overwhelming majority of the people has never been represented at all, and the struggles of Hungarian parliamentarisn were fought between the large and small landowners, spiritual or temporal. The anointed head of the state, the king, sided with this or that stratum of the ruling class according to the political situation. Feudal representation has taken the form of corporatism, as the various strata ofthe ruling class: clergy, lords, nobles and citizens have acquired their privileges during the 13th — rsth centuries. ‘The corporative state, however, is a product of the 15th century. ‘The highest and most comprehensive organ of representation being the feudal diet, our survey will be dedicated to this institution, It should not be forgotten, however, that the assem- Dlies of the counties, the city and even the borough councils were built on representative principles as well, though with a simpler structure end a limited jurisdiction. ‘THE HUNGARIAN FEUDAL DIET 289 a, CHARACTERISTICS (OF the varieties imaginable in this respect, the assembly of the people may have existed in tribal society, before the evolution of feudalism; the stories of the early chroniclers, however, cannot be taken literally. Revolutionary assemblies of peasants, though important events of class struggle, cannot be regarded as per- ‘manent features of the feudal constitution. Nor ean we describe the meetings of the prelates and barons as organs ofthe governed, for they were themselves the governing body, the royal council. Consequently the action of the governed was manifested in ‘the organ of feudal representation in the given period. The origins of the diet were revealed for the foreign reader by F. Eckhart (1939) and J. Holub (1958). It is well known to the students of constitutional development that the Hungarian parliament has {grown out of the royal assizes, held at the ancient city of Székes- fehérvar (Alba Regia) annually, in connection with the festivities of King Stephea’s day as early as in the twelfth century. Aimed at redressing the grievances and settling the differences of the military ruling class, it became a guarantee of its privileges in the words of the charter of 1222, the “Aurea Bulla”. The occasion of the highest jurisdiction was a suitable forum of discussing political problems, and so it happened that in 1267 the smaller vassals of the king, the servienes regis, gathered at Esztergom, proceeded to enact another version of the “Aurea Bulla”. At the end of the thirteenth century the feudal diet intended to control the government of the high offcils, to regulate the composition of the couneil and to become an annual occasion of political discussion. The fruits of this premature evolution, however, were only reaped a century later, in the reigns of Maria and Sigismond. ‘While the Angevins, supported by the new aristocracy of their own making, could easily dispense with the assemblies of the lesser nobility, the Turkish peril looming on the horizon at the end of the fourteenth century made its Gnancial and military 290 GYOnGr BONS support indispensable. Since in 1585 four nobles were summoned from cach county to the diet, regarded as the full-fledged representatives of their respective counties, the idea of represen- tation grew strong roots in public opinion. The formative period of the corporative state, however, was the middle of the fifteenth ‘century. Ruled by ineffective and shortlived kings and the ‘valiant regent, Jénos Hunyadi for a while, the Hungarian estates grew into a permanent institution between 1437 and 1457. The highest organ of the land, the “pays légal” came into being. ‘Hungarian research has devoted much attention to the definition of the regum in the Middle Ages, apart from its application to territory. At the beginning it has meant the royal power on one hand, the ecclesiastical and lay atistocracy on the other. As the supreme body of government, the royal council retained its name prelati et barones till the catastcophy of Mohécs, wwe find these great landowners identifying themselves with the “country” at every occasion when they were able to act without the masses of the gentry, even as late as in 1490. The force gathered by the nobles in their counties, however, made this identifeation ever more obsolete. In 1434 the patiament is called “totum regaum nostrum... Bude congregatum”, and such formulae become frequent during the following century. What- ever is done or stid by the diet, is an act of “the country”, the enacting of statutes, the voting ofa general levy, or the imposition of an extraordinary tax on their villains, The felty of the citizens is due to the king and the country, mentioned time and again as respublica, the Commonwealth. In the language of the late fifteenth century treason cannot be committed against the king only, as before, but agsinst the country as well; traitors are guilty of damaging the libertes rei as well. The fundamental laws of the country, identical with the privileges of the ruling class, are preserved in the royal treasury, and regarded as the constitution of the land (privilegiam comme regi). From 1500 ‘onwards the estate theory is applied to the feudal diet, and ia ‘THE HUNGARIAN FEUDAL DIET 291 1608 this organ is regulated by statute for the frst time on the ‘basis ofthe representation of estates. We shall rerum to this point Jnter. tis well worth mentioning that the long-estiblished identifi cation of regu and the estates in the mid-fiftesnth century has been questioned lately by two Hungarian scholars, E, Malyusz (1957) and J. Holub (1958). Independently of each other they came to the Zesult that the word often stands for the gentry alone, and is used as such in the documents of several diets. Especially E, Mélyusz has proved in detail that the cardinal statement of the 1435 statute (Decretum mains), being enacted “de prelatorum et baronum nos:rorum, necnon nobilium regai nostri totam corpus ciusdem regni cum plena facultate absentium representantium ‘unanimi voto, consilio” etc., should be interpreted in this way. ‘Asa matter o fact, the masses ofthe gentry were able to grasp the steering-wheel of the country at rare occasions only, but thep. they acted as if they were the only representatives of the nation. Sharing this view, the influential leader of this class, Istwin. Werbdczy boldly identifed the prelates and barons with the nobles as having the same nobilitary privilege (1514), and his view has become a fundamental tenet of feudal Hungary up to 1848. In 2 land where the evolution of the bourgeoisie was hindered by all sorts of obstacles, economic «nd political, the constitution was bound to have a nobilitary character. 5. ORGANISATION ‘The terms applied to the feudal parliament are rather various. “They have one feature in common: they portray the meeting of the ptivileged members of the community as representing the whole. ‘We have seen the change the word repum underwent during the formative centuries, comprising every nobleman, however modest in fortune, inthe end. But there were other expressions as well, 292 cvOner nénts borrowed from the treasure of Roman and Canon Law, and used to cover the realities of political life. By a patieat research J. Holub hhas traced (1938) the emergence of such terms as cefus and si- serstas nobilinm as eatly as in 1298, oF communitas and identitas in a document of 1530. They returned later on with a meaning ‘hat has come, similarly to reguum, to embrace all the landholders, lerical and lay, regarded as members of an allegedly uniform nobility by Werbéczy. Ie was in his ominous wotk “Triparticum”” that a long evolution of another symbolic expression, the corona, attained its logical goal by comprising all the gentry as its members. But the last term was never applied to the feudal diet. ‘Regnum, cet, mnivercitas, communitar,identitas or their combi- nations were all expressions of the claim of the ruling class to speak and act on behalf of the whole country. When it came to the description of the actual meeting, however, other terms were ‘more frequently used. Before 1326 the assembly of the privileged inhabitants of the land was most often called congrigatio generals, as contrasted to the meetings of single estates or of some parts of the country. The most usual term emerged in the statute of 1433, attaining universal acceptance in the centuries of Hapsburg rrule;'the diets. As this assembly was actually made up of the prelates, barons, nobles and citizens, it deserved the name status ot ordins, used ia official and every-day language up to 1848. It would be useless to txace all the combinations of these terms through the variegated history of Hungarian feudalism, ‘The feudal diet became an established institution from the end of the igth century, but it was convened at intervals only. The lesser nobility endeavoured now and again to fix the date of its summoning, as it presented an excellent opportunity to exert ‘mass influence on the great landowners, Probably on the tradition of the annual assizes of St Stephen’s day, the diet of r2g0 enacted ‘that it should be gathered year by year. Under Charles Iand Louis T decades have passed by without a parliament, aay some bishops lodged a complaint with the pope, alleging its total suppression THE HUNGARIAN FEUDAL DIET 293 (1338). From the end of the fourteenth century the assembly became more frequent, but its annual convocation was realized in the middle of the fifteenth century only. Matthias I made good use of the congrigetio generalis, being able to influence its decisions efficiently, and under the Jagellons the clamous of the tumultuous nobility often filled the famous meadow Rékeos, a part of Budapest in our day, Statutes frequently declared that the assembly should be summoned ach year or every third one, but the king acted according to his needs and desires. After a rather dense succession Of diets in the first decades of the Hapsburgs, the estates were contented to gither every third year in the seventeenth century, ‘and the intervals became much longer in the eighteenta. On the other hand the duration of a given session became ever longer. Instead of the medieval diets lasting for two or three weeks in average, the eighteenth and nineteenth century assemblies spanned ‘year or even mote, postponed and summoned again at the will of the sovereign. ‘One factor hindering the patliament to become a really pet- ‘manent institution was the lack of an accustomed site. Of the ‘various places of gathering the most favoured ones were the respective capitals: Buda and Pest before, and Pozsosy (to-day Bratislava) after 1526. (Buda was ruled by the Tusks between 1341 and 1686, and it did not atin its former status watil the end of the eighteenth century.) In the prime of the Middle Ages i often happered that the royal council (the germ of the Upper (Chamber) convened in Buda castle, whereas the nobilitry masses picked their teats on the wide Rékos meadow, on the opposite side of the Dazube. This site was identied with the meetings of the gentry so much that its name was borrowed by the Poles for an armed confederation of the sglarbt, in the form of rokorg. Ia the centuries of Hapsburg domination Pozsony became the main, but not the only, place where diets were convened. The sovereign found it easy to influence a gathering from the nearby Viensa, and the governmental organs (dizasterid) were also located in the 294 crOacy nénts ‘ancient crowning city, There was only one customary rule a8 10 the site, namely that parliament could not be held outside the country. “The organisation of the diet was similar to other European pasliaments and estates general. In the period before 1526 we might say that the royal council continued to sit during the sessions of parliament, without being organized as an Upper Chamber. The name “barons” has acquired a double meaning, covering the chief dignitaries of the land (veri barones regs’) on one ‘hand, and the largest landowners on the other (barnes solo ‘oming), As no decision could be effective without the cooperation of the lerical and lay aratocracy, this upper stratum of the ruling ‘lass has been summoned in person by the king. The gentry ‘appeared either in masses or by delegates of the couaties. No gradual transition from the personal attendance to the represen tative one can be traced. A ruler supported by a strong atmy and ‘well-administered finances like Matthias I simply did act tolerate the tomultuous masses of the nobles, so he ordered the election of several representatives by each county. On the other hand the decades of dissolution under the Jagellons produced several statutes ordering the entire gentry to attend under severe sanctions. (+492, 1498, 1518, 1525). While the diet lasted, shrewd politicians could attain considerable success by inciting the unruly armed robles to acts of violence and exaggerated demands. The diet being finished, the prelates and magnates got hold of the govern- ‘ment again, At last the custom of personal attendince was dropped after 1330. As to the cities, they have been summoned at several instances since 1397, nay an important starute was enacted by the counsel of the foyal towns, boroughs and villages in 1405. Theie regular attendance by deputies can be proved since 1441. Though “members of the country” themselves, the cities never attained a real momentum in the assemblies, and their representatives were contented to watch and report on the proceedings. ‘THE HUNGARIAN FEUDAL DIET 295 ‘As the centre of government shifted to Vienna after the ‘atasteophy of Mohécs and the fll of Buda (1543), and the ruler endeavoured to shape the dict according to his needs (by multi- plying the number of churchmen and citizens), Act 1 of 1608 codified the organisstion of parliament for the first ime. The statute was drafted in the spirit of the estate theory. Though the existence of the two “Tables”, the Upper and the Lower Chamber, became an accomplished fact by then, the participants of the diet ‘were not enumerated according to these but in the framework of the four estates: prelates, magnates, nobles and cities (regarded as collective nobles). No one was to be summoned, except the ‘members of these estates, the stafus ef ordines. According to the statute the Upper Table consisted of the chief dignitaies of the realm, the magnates (acquising hereditary titles by thes), and the archbishops and bishops actually governing a diocese, titularies, excluded. The Lower Table embraced the delegates of the counties and free districts (Jazigs, Comans and Hsjdus), those of the lower clergy (chapters and convents) and the representatives of the cities of fall status (lberae regiae cvitates), but only those ‘coumerated in Act 5 of 1514. Beside these participants the king ‘was entitled to invite the chief justices of the land and some judges of the zoyal court, siting in one of the chambers according to the ancient custom. The sessions of the Upper Table were presided by the frst dignitary of the country, the comes palatims, ot by the (Chief Justice in the cate of vacancy or absence of the former. ‘The Lower Table deliberated under the rod of another high judge, the persnali, presiding at the King’s Bench (fabula regia), while the assistants of the high judges (magistri protonotarit) drafted the protoeals. This organisation placed the dicts of the Hapsburg times under strong governmental control. It must be added that the number of the free cities has grown at a measure which seemed 10 jeopardize the majority of the gentry in the 17th and 18th centuries. Disappointed at the failure of restrictive stautes, this stratum adopted the practice of regarding the votes of the bur- 296 GrOnGY Bons gesses as a single corpomntive one at the end of the eighteenth century. Tn short, the members of the Hungarian feudal diet possessee vote and sestion by different tiles. The chief dignitaries, judges and prelates sat by the right of office, the magnates by that of bieth, the delegates of the countis,ftee cities and ecclesiastical corporations on the basis of election. Only the latter must be dealt with here, It is only in the counties that we find a real lection. A special congregation was summoned to return the deputies of the county, usually two. Without any rule as to the proceedings, the nobles of the respective county elected their deputies and gave them their instructions, binding at east from the sixweenth century onwards (the system of mandat impératf). ‘The ecclesiastical corporations were entitled to return one member 4s a deputy, while the usually two representatives of the cites ‘were designated by the council of exch. 4, COMPETENCE, ‘The competence of the diet has never been codified, in fact it ‘varied according to the relative strength of the various strata of the ruling class and the royal power respectively. In the centuries of the independent Hungarian state the sovereign consulted the estates when he found that his military, financial or other needs could not be satisfied without their consent. So it happened that in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries the diet, charac~ terized by the supremacy of the nobility, became an indispensable organ of enacting statutes, imposing taxes, ordering a general levy and the lke. Theoretically the problem was seen in the light of feudal representation. Since the assembly was regarded as the reguum itself, all important matters were to be discussed and decided by it. The principle “Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus approbetur” made its appearance in the work of the chronicler of {THE HUNGARIAN FEUDAL DIET 297 the late thirteenth century, Simon Keézai already. Political docu- ‘ments made frequent use of i since the mid-ffteenth century, a it has been shown in my study (1947) and the peper of J. Holub (2952). The writ of the council, summoning the diet in 1445, afer the death of the young Wiadislas I at Varna, ordered the members to attend, “volentes, ut quod omnes pariter concernit, vvestro et omaium aliorum consilio fiat”. Matthias I adopted the principle as well, nor could the weak Jagelions dispense with it. Such formulae, however, mark the tide of politcal development rather than influence it, After 1526 the competence of the diet has been fixed by constitutional custom, without being able to hinder the triumph of absolutism. ‘The chief business of parliament was naturaly legislation. At the beginning even the changes effected by the king in council ‘were veiled by the slogan of the “good, old law” or its Hungarian equivalents. The frst great wave of Roman Law infuence in the thirteenth century bas carried che high-sounding expressions of oyal legislative power into the arengar of documents drafted in chancery. Nobody has doubted during the reigns of the Angevins and Sigismond that the king was entitled to isste statutes (called ‘usually derets) in his council; he could ask the advice of the robles and bargesses, if he wanted, without being bound to do so. Under Emperor Sigismond we find an astonishing variety of legislative procedures, e.g. acts of parliament, orders in council, nay & zoyal deeretu issued inthe congrezation of a single county (1421). But it was the same ruler who ordered the carefully claborated proposals for a new organisation of the army (the so-called Siera Register) to be sent to the counties for discussion and criticism in 1453. The bill contained the principle of free speech in the assembly of the county, the exclusion of nobles of other counties from the discussion, and the desire that the representatives to be chosen should be provided with the detailed instructions of their fellow-nobles. This progressive step did ‘not mean that all legislative measures were debated in this 298 ordnor aéxas manner, the less so as the waits of summons rately specified the agenda of the next assembly yet. The gentry, strengthened in the struggles of the midfifteenth century, managed to make its ‘meetings an indispensable factor of legislation. The statute was called genrale decretum reprcolarum as eatly 28 in 1447, and the strong Matthias I made his laws after parliamentary decision regularly, ‘The principle of legislation i parliament found ite ‘way to the Hungarian “book of authority”, the Triparitum of Werbsczy (1514), and it was reaffirmed by Act 18 of 1655. Valid to the end of the ancien rigie, i could not prevent the issue of an appalling umber of ordinances. ‘Taxation, another important branch of parliamentary activity, ‘was not bound to the consent of the diet until the mid-ffteenth century. The revenues of the royal domains, the customs, the coinage and other rigalie belonged to the king, entitled to tax his subjects in an ordinary manner of old (clita, erm camera ee.) Bat for extmordinary taxation, the various aids and subsidies receded for defence, he had to 28k the consent of the council at least, Recently (1957) E. Malyusz has traced the history of taxation in the creative decades berween 1457 and 1457, artiving at the conclusion that the gentry regarded the parliamentary vote as a condition of taxing from 1453 onwards. This became a general custom under Matthias and a rule of statute law in 1504; hence- forth taxes could be levied “de consensu et voluntate totius segni” only, Although the Hapsburgs did not repeal this rule cof constitutional law, they invented numerous kinds of indirect taxation, summoning aa assembly of notables (cnasuc) for the assessment and distribution of the desired amount in the 18th century. It should not be forgotten thatthe ruling class, sticking to its “cardinal” right of freedom from taxation, voted the increasing amount of aids and subsidies on the account of the: _jebbigy population, having no sight to decide, only the duty to pay. ‘The army was orgenized, led and dissolved by the king, As long as it was needed for the usual defensive and éynastic campaigns THE HUNGARIAN FEUDAL DIET 299 only, this right has never been jeopardized. The Turkish pesil ‘made warfare a national problem. From the reform of 1397 ‘onwards it often happened that the diet was summoned to discuss it, as itis illusteated by the mentioned Siena propositions. The assembly passed statutes on the army, but declared that the defence of the country was a royal duty in the first place. Under the Jagellons the unruly diets proceeded to establish a separate organisation of the estates for the levy and expenditure of the war tax, but this did not survive after the battle of Mohées. ‘The Hapsburgs tolerated no interference with their army, nay they extended the jurisdiction of an imperial organ, the Hof- ‘rier to all their lands. After the short-lived attempts at the founding of independent (and by definition anti-Hapsburg) armies in the glorious struggles of Bocskai, Thokély and Rakéczi, the diet of 1715 enacted the principle of a standing army under ‘Austrian command, containing Hungarian troops as well. Finally the diet meddled with the problems of diplomacy under the Jagellons, sending separate ambassadors to foreign powers ‘occasionally; no Hungarian foreign service existed, however, under the Hapsburgs. On the other hand some constitutional functions were reserved for the feudal diet up to the end: the lection of the king (until 1687), his coronation and the wording of his inaugural diplom, the election of the Count Palatine and the guardians ofthe crown. Needles to say, these rights, important fas they were, could not check the rise of absolutism actually. In some cases (as that of high treason) the diet acted as a court of law in certain periods. 5. Paocenume, Unfortunately our medieval sources rarely reveal anything of the parliamentary proceedings. In writs of summons we find a concise program, in statutes the outcome of the negotiations. 300 evince nists Documents like the mentioned Siena Register, going into the details of deliberation, are very rare. From the fragmentary data wwe may, however, draw the conclusion that there were two ‘opposite ways of reaching a decision before 1526. As the sum- moning of the dict belonged 0 the royal presogative, the proposals (Enancial, military, judicial or any othe) were carefully drafted in the king’s council, the Upper Table of later days, and subjected to the deliberation of the nobles and citizens. “The statute of 1478 has come down to our time in the form of an answer ofthe estates to the king’s propositions. The other way cof reaching a decision initiated with the representatives of counties and cities, They made use of the occasion to present their grievances against the abuses of royal officials, judges, tax- collectors and the like, orto press their demands for an increased share in government. This justifed the enterprise to undertake the costly journey from their homes. It deserves mention that the: cazly “parliament” of 1299 enacted the later reiterated principle of the responsiblity of chief dignitaries, which remained a dead letter, as & matter of fact. The statute being issued from the royal chancery, often after the dissolution of the session, the king was fee to concede as much as he deemed necessary in the given situation, Both ways of che parliamentary proceeding were ‘mentioned in the book of Werbdczy, the frequently quoted ‘Teipartitum (U1, 5). ‘We should be interested to learn how the proposals were voted upon. Before 1326 the only statute dealing with this subject is ‘Act as of 1495. Te wants the king to communicate all important business with the council before the diet, and demands the councillors to discuss them in order, Their votes will be collected by the Lord Chamberlain, that they should come to accord following the opinion of the wiser, saner and more clever part, in order to reach the conclusion of the dict as soon as possible. Extended to the representatives this means that before 1526 theze was no majority vote, but the will ofthe pars zaior prevailed ‘THE HUNGARIAN FEUDAL DIET 301 Jn connection with the bylaws of the counties (staita) the "Tripartitum tells us the meaning of the pars senior: itis the opinion of those who excel by dignity and wisdom (IIL 2). As a matter of fact this i a synonym for those who have more land and a larger retinue of armed men. ‘The diets of Hapsburg times have left a mass of diaties and documents to posterity, so we are much better informed on their procedure. The main objects of future discussions were mentioned in the waits of summons already, so the counties and cities could provide their delegates with appropriate instructions. According fo statute (Act 108 of 1498) the dict was opened four days after the date fixed in the writs. Before the official opening the members of the Upper Chamber called on their president, the Count Palatine or the Chief Justice, those of the Lower Chamber presented their credentials to their speaker, the personais. During the preparatory phase the two chambers greeted each other officially. The schedule of the solemn opening, the orde: of the receptios ofthe sovereign or (more frequently) his commissioners, and the problems of protocol were regulated in a royal writ (drecoriam), discussed by both houses in detail. The king or the commissioners handed the estates, assembled in a common session, 4 copy of the royal propositions, thereby begining the dict offdally. On the other hand, the estates compiled a long list of their demands and grievances (postulata ef gravamina) on the basis of the ists brought by the representatives to the die. From the grea: mass of grievances, classified according to estate oF confessioa, a commission of the Lower Chamber selested the most important ones (granamina prasferentalia), but the final text ‘was discussed and accepted by both houses. As they were regarded as one single body, no grievance could be presented to the sovereign without common consent. As to the much discussed question, whether royal propositions or grievances should be dealt with first, constitutional practice held that the demands of the king should be treated before the others; it often happened, 302 ‘however, that the estates clung to the redressing of their griev- ‘ances before falflling the sovereign’s wishes. A characteristic feudal bartering followed, with a long exchange of messages between both houses on one hand (muncium, renunciwn), and the diet as a body and the king on the other (repratsentato, reli). Without their consent no bill could be made law, and the debated problem was laid aside. ‘We are not informed on the way of deliberation sufficiently. No uniformity of all votes was necessary, as it happened in the Polish sym, nor was the majority rue firmly established. Though some bills caused this or that estate to refrain from voting, e.g. the clergy of the citizens, n0 corporative vote existed in the Hungarian diet, until such was forced upon the lower clergy ia the eighteenth and the free cities in the nineteenth century. The ‘members of the Upper Chamber voted per head, and so did those of the other for a long time. In the eighteenth century, however, constitutional practice held that each county and free district possessed one collective vote. As the decision was proclaimed by the president of each house according to the vicissitudes of discussion, the problem had no teal importance. Except the solema acts of electing the Count Palatine ot the guardians of the crown, accomplished in a mixed session, the work of the diet attained its goal by the enacting of statutes (dereta), As these were published in the king’s name, the royal chancery moulded the final text according to his wishes till the sixteenth century. In 1604 the statute accepted by parliament was supplemented by another one (Article 22) in the royal cour, forbidding the debate on religion in the future. This arbitrary proceeding contributed to the upheaval led by Bocskai, resulting in a seties of important concessions in the favour of religious freedom and the feudal constitution. Henceforth the estates topped the practice of petitions and drafted their wishes in the form of articles. The final text was agreed upon by a commission sade up of delegates of the royal chancery and the two chambers. THE HUNGARIAN FEUDAL Dit 303, ‘The diet remained together until the statute, sanctioned by the ‘King’s seal and signature, was distributed to the members at the final session, 6. RELATIONS WITH THE GOVERNMENT AND THE SUBJECTS We have to distinguish between the centuries before and after 1526. In the petiod of the independent Hungesian state the diet ‘was regarded as an enlarged royal council, embracing the whole “country” virtually. It is significant that in the mid-ffteenth century, during the regeney of Jénos Hunyadi, the council of government issued its writs under the name of “prelati, arones et roceres regni Hungariae”, and under the same, adding “in congrsgatione nostra general” when the estates were really present, The realities of social and political struggles were hidden, behind the traditional formulae, As a matter of fact, violent alter- cations ensued between the great landowners, ecclesiastical and lay, and the masses of the gentry, the really active part of the assembly. The diet, acting on behalf of the country, proceeded to influence the designation of the chief dignitaries, claimed the tight of calling them to account, and enacted the numerical ratio of the members of the royal council according to estates. These endeavours, especially strong in the time of the Jagellons, could ‘not establish the responsible government of a “nobles’ demoe- Tae of te Hapa ‘Hapsburgs created a number of bodies, organied with a more or les ccumscibed competence from the sixteenth century onwards. These organs (dlcastria) received their instructions and salaries from the king or the central Vienna offices. A large administrative machinery has grown up, the methods of which were strange to most deputies, and the decisions independent of their actions. The grievances ‘very often hurled abuse at these organs, Viennese and Hungarian 304 Groner BONIs alike, bot they could hardly change anything, Absolutism, initiated under Leopold T (1637-1705), found a strong support in these bureaucratic organs, amplifying and reshaping them in its sara in the eighteenth century. In the sprit of compromise beeween the king andthe ruling class after the failure of Rakécai’s florious struggle, the chief administrave organ, the con ‘hcumonettale Hxgricam, was established by the dit of 172/23. Having voted on the king's propositions, the estates had 10 ‘word in the everyday function of this orgaa, nor in the actions Of thote directing diplomacy, the finances of the army. An un- precedented cleavage arose between the government and the diet. "The personal Links between legislation, administration and the judiciary scem to contradict this statement. The Count Palatine, head of the Locotenential Council and the Supreme Court, presided over the sessions of the Upper Chamber as well the president of the King’s Bench, as mentioned, acted a8 the speaker of the Lower Chamber. These being absent or their seats ‘Yaeant, their places were occupied by the Chief Justice and his Jubsdtute, respectively. But these links rerulted racer from tad tion than planning. Parliament has been the supreme court of justice of old, though an exceptional one; the statutes of the JTagellons made it the competent court of high treason, and all ‘ther courts had to cease jo days before the diet was opened. The high judges of the land, bereft of their ancient political roles, did not represent any connection between the governmental orgaas tnd the diet. They did not covey the sometimes recalcitrant titi ofthe assembly to ther judicial or administrative Fanctions; ta the contrary, they acted as the king’s agents in the sesions. “The masses had no word in the proceedings of parliament. The lesser gentry and the wealthy burgesses were able to influence the elections of representatives and to sum up their grievances in theis instructions. But the people a large, the exploited masses ‘were not consulted on the problems discussed in the diet. The privileges dear to the hearts of the nobles were fetters on the ‘Tim HUNGARIAN PuUDAL DIET 305 ‘hands and feet of the common people. So it happened that in the eighteenth century, when the state intended to relieve the taxpayers in its own interest, the deputations of peasants did not carry their grievances ro the estates, but to the court of Vienna. 7. Concuuston ‘The first fact to be acted is that the Hungarian feudal diet did ‘ot cease to exist until +848, while so many similar organs were suppressed in other countries, After decades of arbitrary govern- ment, the resistance of the ruling class forced monarchs to summon it again. Though more decorative than powerful, the feudal diet acted as a check on the endeavours of the Hapsburgs to create a Grramimonarcbie in Central Europe. This defensive role has been often exaggerated by our historians. z ‘The other significant fact is that the feudal diet presented ‘obilitary character. Bishops, counts and barons have found their feld of action in the royal court; nobles could only play a role in the diet. By an evolution contrary to the English Palia- ‘ment, they separated themselves from the citizens and degraded ‘bee oan insignificant pontion, (The “ils esis” ofthe nineteenth century, fllicg outside the scope of the present paper, cxclaed them altogether) So the feudal dt ated as a rake on progress towards capitalism, Finally the existence of the diet and the defence of the feudal privileges were linked to each other. The assemblies were wont to sacrifice the vital interests of the people in order to save their ‘own, Till the 1830's all propositions easing the lot of the working people came, though not unselfishly motivated, from the House of Austria. The damage done to the Hungarian masses for centuries was made good only by the last feudal diet, that of 1848, abolishing feudal privileges and duties by a sweeping gesture. 306 GrORGY 36NIs SOURCES AND LITERATURE ‘The statutes ofthe Hungarian feudal ies are edited in the Corus lis Hangar, 200-1848, ed by D. Mirus, Budepest, £896 soqg (Baris edios of this calle tion fom 338% on) A numberof thous mising fom this collection may be found fas JN, Kovac, Sle dere oil. rt Haar, 1, Pest, Sal che best edition af some Fundamental states (he Aurea Bulls, the 1267 locum ete) it H. Manceass, Earn foto bite Hangworan, Baa eso, 1508. The 437 sat, mentioned above in Ch, 4 i preserved inthe Han tran State Archives, Badapen, Dl. 79687, Is origin is mentioned in a document ibid. DL. 12736. A modem edition of Hungarian statutes before 1526, based on the eolleion of the late F. Dy, i being prepared by Mes. V. Bical and the tthe. ‘The papers ofthe feudal lets were published oficllly in 1791 atthe ist ie. ‘The lack of ekons is supplemented by the somewhat antiqued works of M, G.Kovacones, Vein cmitiran spud Hager. nu ad ndrman di ira. ‘en, Boda, 1790, and Sepplammtion ad Veiga omitiona IL, Buda, 1798 the buts of Marta-Leninism. The foreign reader shoud consult the representa tive publication preeoed 10 the Stockolm Congress of Historians: Btades histo siquespubliées pat la Commision Natonale des Hirtoriens Hongrot, IL, Buds- st, 196, For the presear subject the following stds may be especially eecom- ‘mended (alin vol. I): B. Lapenss, La trace de esl onl x as du Me Ai E Mitvose, Dit Zairalitiosbrrabige Kang Sigman in Unora; 1. ‘Bczxas, Ee eel de Ett Bred del ane molt XV" si, — “The formative decdes between 1437 and 1457 were adminbly ated by E. Mix roe, «A magyar tend dllam Hunyadi kordbase (The Hangeelan eoeporatire sate in the pid of J. Hung, inthe periodical Sedge, vol. 19575 othe rematks of Gr. Sxberer, «A XV. sisadl magyar rend dla epyes fogs felmentathers (Remarks 10 the intrpreation of some earporsive idea in 15th searry Hungary) bi vl. 1959. (On consittional development in Hungary se F. Bcxnane, Mager alttmdny- 44 jeri Sangsian.eonsnsioal and legal histor), Budapest, 1947, and Gx. Bova, Fakir ds rnd a Ripon! mage ager, with » Preach seca, f HUNGARIAN FEUDAL DIEF 307 (La loli ot le Corporstinme dans le Droit hongrois dx M.A), Kolorsrt, 1947. On politcal theory sc the lst named work and F. Eceuans, 4 sthorine. ce trite (History ofthe idea of the Holy Cow), Budapest, 943. On tzation the venus of , Maur: Sgéqabk vol. 1937, have shown new sad For rseareh. (On defence one may wilze (with some correction) J. Dla, Zegmond hiry ‘midi pale (The defence policy of King Siginmood), Pes, 1935. On the

    You might also like