Mr. Motley to Mr. Seward.
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your despatches, Nos. 100, 101, 102, of dates October 18, 24, and November 1, conveying summaries of military intelligence up to their respective dates.
The Reichsrath was formally opened on Monday the 14th of this month, at 11 a. m. The members of both houses were assembled, as usual, in the place, to hear the speech from the throne. The hall of ceremonies was surrounded with temporary seats for such spectators as were provided with tickets of entrance. On the right of the throne were the places reserved for the empress and the ladies of the imperial family and household. On the left was the tribune of the diplomatic corps, most of the members of which were present.
The Emperor took his seat upon the throne at 11 o’clock, the archdukes of his family being grouped on his right, the cabinet ministers and the great officers of state on his left. The reading of the speech occupied about twenty minutes.
You will perceive, by a translated copy of the speech which I append, that the Reichsrath, now assembled, is designated as the collective representation of the empire. The election of members for Transylvania, which took place before the conclusion of the last session, is considered sufficient to give the assembly this general character, which, as long as no deputies had been sent from beyond the Leitha, was not supposed to exist.
You will observe that a hope is expressed that “constitutional activity will soon reappear in the eastern half of the empire.” Whether Hungary and Croatia, to which allusion is here made, will soon follow the good example of Transylvania, must still be deemed very doubtful. Nothing is said, and I should think very little hoped at present as to Venetia’s being brought into actual constitutional connexion with the empire. The empire of Austria, like the old empire of Germany, of which it is the residuary legatee, is forced to struggle, in this commencement of its constitutional existence, with the centrifugal tendency which has always been the leading characteristic of German political organization. Of more than three hundred deputies composing the imperial parliament, about one hundred and fifty thus far have been elected, Hungary, which has been a kingdom with a comparatively liberal although feudal parliament during the long period of German absolutism, seems still in disposed to merge its independent existence in that imperial unity which forms the leading object of Austrian statesmen in the new period of constitutionalism, There has been thus far, however, sufficient central force to compel the political cohesion of the various portions of the empire, even although the voluntary constitutional assimilation is still wanting. The statesmen of Austria are well aware that without this compulsory cohesion the empire would cease to exist. If torn by internal dissensions, it would necessarily become the prey of jealous neighbors and rivals. In this connexion I would call your attention to a remarkable [Page 164] address just delivered to the house of deputies by their president or speaker. This officer is not elected by the chamber, but is appointed by the crown. The address partakes more of the nature of a historical and philosophical lecture than of a parliamentary speech; and the orator is, of course, only expressing his own opinions, not making a political manifesto. There is much depth of thought and vigor of illustration in the harangue, and it possesses great interest both for the light thus shed by a philosophic mind upon Austrian and upon German affairs, and by the reflection indirectly and unintentionally thrown upon many points in our own history and polity.
“The elements out of which the Austrian monarchy has compounded itself” says President von Hasner, “were, in the stage of their development, broken up into states. * * * The parts, had history allowed it, could have remained independent, and have really become states. As, however, they combined themselves into a higher legal unity, they could not deprive that unity of the right to develop itself into that form of universality which is the state, for the state must be somewhere. * * * * Now there are certainly various forms of state powers, but that particular form according to which the shattered power of the unity belongs to the various parts, is the negation of the state—it is impossible. One will not venture, I hope, to call this a mere theoretical dispute. It is the skeleton upon which the flesh of all political discussion must form itself. In it is made manifest the totality of our situation, for the absolute state never understood how to make the political signification of the modern United States dear and valuable to the parts united in it. While, however, it did not understand how to awaken their interest, it at the same time left with them a dim consciousness of their own rights. Thus only is it conceivable that even on this day of reawakened liberty, the parts thus united could not hail it as the réalization of their wishes; but, on the contrary, withdrew themselves, shyly, into the warm corner of their so-called well-won rights. This was the ground upon which the Austrian constitution arose.”
The position of Hungary and other kingdoms and provinces, in their attitude of passive resistance to the constitution of 1861, could not be more adroitly or philosophically indicated. How soon those “shy” members of the United Empire will be drawn out of the “warm corners” of their ancient feudal privileges remains to be seen. To attract them into the imperial constitutional union is now the great object of the government. So far as I am informed, however, they are likely for the present to maintain their coyness.
But if Austria, which is after all a great imperial, powerful organism, an essential element of the European pentarchy, is forced to struggle so strenuously against the elements of dissolution thus indicated by one of her leading constitutional statesmen, how much more potent is the centrifugal tendency of the various component parts of Germany, whose fictitious unity is represented by the Bund. Those Americans must be blind to all the teachings of history who can fail to find pregnant lessons for ourselves in the perpetual efforts of Germany towards that unity of which the course of its history has deprived the German people. The historical result, solemnly established and recorded more than two hundred years ago by the congress of Westphalia, was the disunion of Germany, and the recognition of the sovereignty of its many states. The historical result established by the constitutional convention of 1787 in our country was the unity of America, and the virtual abdication of sovereignty by the States. Our state for eighty years has been the United Republic. The state in Germany has been, for centuries, Wurtemberg or Hanover, Prussia or Austria, Leppe-Detmold or Walderk, or however the greater or minuter atoms of nationality may be designated; yet, strange to say, while it is the constant effort of the most liberal and the most patriotic minds in Germany to bring about that national unity which has never been, but of which the Bund at least expresses the perpetual hope, it is the desire of various parties in America to [Page 165] reduce our magnificent Union to the helpless condition of a confederacy, from which the wisdom of our ancestors so fortunately rescued us. I shall not pursue this train of analogy, but I cannot resist adding a further paragraph or two from the address of the Austrian “President” in regard to the German question.
“Here, too,” says Mr. von Hasner, “it seems to me our position is clearly limited on the one part by our legal obligations, while on the other side a correct appreciation of history will guard us against contradictions and precipitate action. The centrifugal movement of the history of the German empire has formed the twigs of the German oak into trunks. To unite them again to the original stem is the impulse (drang) of the German people. In a history centuries old, the real form of the German empire has grown ever paler and paler, through the development of provincial sovereignty, until, in the peace of Westphalia, the parts became states, and the empire was converted into what Puffendorf has described as a political monstrosity. The German question is the demand for nullification against this last lawsuit of world-history. Whether the suit is still to be gained, whether the parts now developed into states—yes, and great states—will ever assent to any essential curtailment of their sovereignty, on this I will disturb no man’s faith. But the history of German political life, and the experience of later times, make it clear to me that a real unity will not spin itself like silk out of the chrysalis of the Frankfort Diet, and that it will never be possible by free consent to establish a general form of government whose appearance would not rather injure than content the German people. The strong hand, however, which could do this by force I do not see.
“That which Charlemagne, a thousand years ago, could not permanently effect, that I think will hardly be attempted by the Epigoni. Germany’s Chæronea and Philippi are not to be feared from Prussia. Austria’s centre of gravity is by far not in Ofen, but Germany’s centre of gravity is by far not in Berlin.”
On the 18th of November the finance minister, M. von Plener, made his annual report, bringing in the budget for 1865. It is understood that the budget for 1866 will also be presented so soon as the discussion upon that for the next coming year shall have been terminated.
Although the nominal deficit is less for 1865 than it was for any one of the three preceding years—to go no further back—yet the effect produced by the financial statement does not seem very cheerful. The sum total of estimated expenses for 1865 (ordinary and extraordinary) is stated by the minister at 548,705,412 florins; the sum total of receipts as 518,227,816 florins. There is therefore a deficit of 30,477,596 florins to be covered.
The. Austrian share of the cost for the campaign in Schleswig-Holstein is fixed by article XII of the treaty just concluded with Denmark at the round sum of eighteen millions, to be repaid by the duchies. If this is collected during the coming year the deficit would be reduced in round numbers to twelve millions.
The critics of the statement, however, maintain that two items of the estimated receipts, viz., about sixteen millions to be derived from the sale of certain state domains and mines, and ten millions of pounds from a former loan contracted in England, but not yet paid in, are not reasonably to be charged as income. If added to the balance left, after deducting the claim on the duchies, the result would be a deficit of 12 + 16 + 10=38 millions of florins. On the other hand sixty millions of debt maturing the coming year are to be paid off. Whether this is to be a real reduction of the debt, or a mere substitution of one form of indebtedness for another, it is not at present in my power to state. A favorable feature of the exhibit is that instead of the deficit for 1862, formerly estimated by the minister at nearly ninety-eight millions, a real deficiency of, in round numbers, only seventy-five millions has subsequently manifested itself, [Page 166] the difference being caused by a larger yield from the taxes (especially in Hungary) than bad been anticipated. Thus the deficit during the last four years, from 1862 to 1865, inclusive, would be 75 + 62+109 + 30=276 millions of florins, or an annual average of about seventy millions of florins.
The chief items of expenses for 1865 are:
| The court, (civil list) | 7,421,144 | florins. |
| Foreign office | 2,374,430 | “ |
| State department | 31,104,350 | “ |
| Hungarian chancery | 12,071,015 | “ |
| Finance department | 342,876,466 | “ |
| Ministry of commerce | 13,606,741 | “ |
| Ministry of justice | 8,204,894 | “ |
| Ministry of police | 3,372,864 | “ |
| War department | 105,767,772 | “ |
| Navy | 11,102,766 | “ |
I have the honor to remain, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.