Footnote 631:Art. 85, §§ 1-14. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 278-279.(Back)
Footnote 632:For a brief account of the procedure of the chambers see Vincent, Government in Switzerland, 181-187.(Back)
Footnote 633:On the operation of the optional referendum see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II., 252-261. "From 1874 till 1908 the Federal Assembly passed 261 bills and resolutions which could constitutionally be subjected to the referendum. Thirty of these 261 were actually voted on by the people, who ratified eleven and rejected nineteen of them. The effect of the federal optional legislative referendum was, then, to hold up a little more than seven per cent of the statutory output of the Federal Assembly." W. E. Rappard, inAmerican Political Science Review, Aug., 1912, 357. On the most recent exercise of the federal referendum (the adoption, February 4, 1912, of a national Accident and Sickness Insurance bill) see M. Turmann, Le référendum suisse du 4 février—la loi fédérale sur l'assurance-maladie et l'assurance accident, inLe Correspondant, Feb. 10, 1912. This particular referendum was called for by 75,000 voters. The measure submitted was approved by a vote of 287,566 to 241,416, on a poll of 63.04 per cent of the registered electorate.(Back)
Footnote 634:Arts. 118-123. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 287-289.(Back)
Footnote 635:C. Borgeaud, Le plébiscite du 4 novembre 1894, inRevue du Droit Public, Nov.-Dec., 1894. The adverse votes were decisive, i.e., 308,289 to 75,880 and 347,401 to 145,362 respectively.(Back)
Footnote 636:The introduction of proportional representation in Switzerland is advocated especially by the Socialists and the Clericals, to whom principally would accrue the benefits of the system. The Liberals are favorable to the principle, though they prefer to postpone the issue. The Radicals are solidly opposed. At the referendum of 1900 the project was rejected by 11-1/2 to 10-1/2 cantons, and by a popular majority of 75,000; at that of October 23, 1910, it was approved by 12 to 10 cantons, but was rejected popularly by a majority of less than 25,000 (265,194 negative, 240,305 affirmative). Rather curiously, the defeat arose largely from the defection of the Catholic canton of Freiburg, which in 1900 was favorable by a vote of 13,000 to 3,800. The canton's vote in 1910 was for rejection, by 11,200 to 3,900. By those best acquainted with the situation this astonishing reversal is explained by the influence which is exercised in the canton to-day by M. Python, a dictator who opposes any innovation whereby his own controlling position would be menaced. Not unnaturally, the friends of the project (and in 1910 all parties save the Radicals gave it their support) regard the outcome in 1910 as a certain forecast of eventual victory. In nine of the cantonal governments, beginning with that of Ticino in 1891, the principle has been already put in operation. In truth, the defeat of 1910 was followed promptly by a triumph in the important canton of St. Gall, where the proportional system was adopted for the first time, February 5, 1911, for elections of the cantonal council. See E. Secretan, Suisse, inRevue Politique et Parlementaire, Feb., 1911; G. Daneo, La rappresentanza proporzionale nella Svizzera, inNuova Antologia, Sept. 16, 1910.(Back)
Footnote 637:Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 280-281. For references on the initiative and the referendum see p.420. A very satisfactory appraisal of the operation of these principles in Switzerland may be found in Lloyd, A Sovereign People, chaps. 14-15. See also W. E. Rappard, The Initiative and the Referendum in Switzerland, inAmerican Political Science Review, Aug., 1912.(Back)
Footnote 638:Upon this subject, especially the effects of the referendum upon political parties, see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II., 314-332.(Back)
Footnote 639:On Swiss political parties see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II., Chap. 13; Adams and Cunningham, The Swiss Confederation, Chap. 7.(Back)
Footnote 640:Art. 114. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 287.(Back)
Footnote 641:Art. 112. Ibid., II., 286.(Back)
Footnote 642:On the Swiss federal judiciary see Vincent, Government in Switzerland, Chap. 15; Adams and Cunningham, The Swiss Confederation, Chap. 5.(Back)
Footnote 643:This designation was first employed in a diploma of the Emperor Francis Joseph I., November 14, 1868 (see p.459).(Back)
Footnote 644:Lowell, Governments and Parties, II., 177.(Back)
Footnote 645:See p.448.(Back)
Footnote 646:At the diet of Pressburg, in 1687-1688, the Hungarian crown had been declared hereditary in the house of Hapsburg, and the Austrian heir, Joseph, had been crowned hereditary king. In 1697 Transylvania was united to the Hungarian monarchy. The banat of Temesvár was acquired by the Hapsburgs in 1718. The term "banat" denotes a border district, or march.(Back)
Footnote 647:J. Andrássy, Development of Hungarian Constitutional Liberty (London, 1908), 93.(Back)
Footnote 648:Charles VI. as emperor.(Back)
Footnote 649:The Pragmatic Sanction was accepted at different dates by the various diets of the Austro-Hungarian lands: in 1713 by Croatia, and from 1720 to 1724 by the other diets. It was finally proclaimed a fundamental law in 1724.(Back)
Footnote 650:As emperor of Austria, Francis I. (1804-1835).(Back)
Footnote 651:Technically the control of the government was vested in a small group of dignitaries known as the Staatskonferenz, or State Conference. The nominal president of this body was the Archduke Louis, representing the crown; but the actual direction of its proceedings fell to Metternich. H. von Sybel, Die Österreichische Staatskonferenz von 1836, inHistorische Zeitschrift, 1877.(Back)
Footnote 652:On Austria during the period of Metternich see Cambridge Modern History, X., Chap. 11, XI., Chap. 3; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, X., Chap. 17; A. Stern, Geschichte Europas (Berlin, 1904-1911), I., Chap. 3; A. Springer, Geschichte Österreichs seit dem Wiener Frieden 1809 (Leipzig, 1863), I., 275-322; H. Meynert, Kaiser Franz I. (Vienna, 1872).(Back)
Footnote 653:Brief accounts of the revolution of 1848-1849 in Austria-Hungary will be found in Cambridge Modern History, XI., Chaps. 6-7 (bibliography, pp. 887-893), and Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, XI., Chap. 4. The most important treatise is H. Friedjung, Österreich von 1848 bis 1860 (2d ed., Stuttgart and Berlin, 1908), the first volume of which covers the period 1848-1851. There is a serviceable account in L. Leger, History of Austria-Hungary from the Beginning to the Year 1878, trans. by B. Hill (London, 1889), Chaps. 30-33. Older accounts in English include W. H. Stiles, Austria in 1848-9 (New York, 1852), and W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria (3d ed., London, 1907). The Hungarian phases of the subject are admirably presented in L. Eisenmann, Le compromis austro-hongroise (Paris, 1904).(Back)
Footnote 654:On Austro-Hungarian affairs in the period 1860-1867 see Cambridge Modern History, XI., Chap. 15, XII., Chap. 7 (bibliography, pp. 876-882), and Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, XI., Chap. 13. The best treatise is L. Eisenmann, Le compromis austro-hongroise (Paris, 1904). An account by an active participant is J. Andrássy, Ungarns Ausgleich mit Österreich von Jahre 1867 (Leipzig, 1897). The best detailed account in English is Leger, History of Austria-Hungary, Chaps. 34-35. Two important biographies are: A. Forster, Francis Deák, a Memoir (London, 1880), and E. Ebeling, F. F. Graf von Beust (Leipzig, 1870-71).(Back)
Footnote 655:It should be emphasized that the phrase "Austrian Empire," properly used, denotes Austria alone. Hungary is no part of the Empire. Throughout the following description effort has been made to avoid inaccuracy of expression by referring to Austria-Hungary as the "dual monarchy," or simply as "the monarchy." The nomenclature of the Austro-Hungarian union is cumbersome, but therein it merely reflects the character of the union itself.(Back)
Footnote 656:Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 81.(Back)
Footnote 657:See p.479.(Back)
Footnote 658:Law concerning the General Rights of Citizens. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 71-74.(Back)
Footnote 659:The texts of the fundamental laws at present in operation are printed in E. Bernatzik, Die österreichischen Verfassungsgesetze (2d ed., Vienna, 1911), and in a collection issued by the Austrian Government under the title Die Staatsgrundgesetze (7th ed., Vienna, 1900). The statutes of 1867 are in Lowell, Governments and Parties, II., 378-404, and, in English translation, in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 71-89. The best description in English of the Austrian governmental system is Lowell,op. cit.; II., Chap. 8. The best extended treatise is J. Ulbrich, Lehrbuch des österreichischen Staatsrechts (Vienna, 1883). Excellent briefer works are L. Gumplowicz, Das österreichische Staatsrecht (3d ed., Vienna, 1907); J. Ulbrich, Österreichisches Staatsrecht (3d ed., Tübingen, 1904), in Marquardsen's Handbuch; and R. von Herrnritt, Handbuch des österreichischen Verfassungsrechtes (Tübingen, 1910). On the workings of the governmental system something may be gleaned from G. Drage, Austria-Hungary (London, 1909); S. Whitman, Austria (New York, 1879) and H. Rumbold, Francis Joseph and his Times (New York, 1909).(Back)
Footnote 660:Issued definitely in 1724.(Back)
Footnote 661:Law concerning the Exercise of Administrative and Executive Power, December 21, 1867, § 8. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 88.(Back)
Footnote 662:There is a joint ministry of finance, though each of the monarchies maintains a separate ministry for the administration of its own fiscal affairs. On the joint ministries see p.510.(Back)
Footnote 663:Law concerning the Exercise of Administrative and Executive Power, December 21, 1867, § 9. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 88-89.(Back)
Footnote 664:W. Beaumont, Cabinets éphémères et ministères provisoires en Autriche, inAnnales des Sciences Politiques, March, 1900; H. Hantich, Nouvelle phase du parlementarisme en Autriche, inQuestions Diplomatiques et Coloniales, February 1, 1910.(Back)
Footnote 665:It is interesting to observe that this guarantee against the wholesale creation of peers was brought forward with the object of winning for the Government's Universal Suffrage Bill the assent of the upper chamber.(Back)
Footnote 666:Hazen, Europe since 1815, 399.(Back)
Footnote 667:By a law of 1882 the direct-tax qualification had been reduced to 5 florins.(Back)
Footnote 668:For tables exhibiting comparatively the distribution of seats in 1867, 1873, 1896, and 1907, see W. Beaumont, Le suffrage universel en Autriche: la loi du 26 janvier 1907 inAnnales des Sciences Politiques, Sept., 1907.(Back)
Footnote 669:As has been pointed out, the pledge was redeemed in 1907 by a measure fixing the minimum number of life peers at 150 and the maximum at 170. See p.466.(Back)
Footnote 670:On the electoral law of 1907 see W. Beaumont, Le suffrage universel en Autriche: la loi du 26 janvier 1907, inAnnales des Sciences Politiques, Sept., 1907; H. Hantich, Le suffrage universel en Autriche, inQuestions Diplomatiques et Coloniales, Feb. 16, 1907; M. E. Zweig, La réforme électorale en Autriche, inRevue du Droit Public, April-June and July-Sept., 1907.(Back)
Footnote 671:Law of December 21, 1867, concerning Imperial Representation, § 10. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 77.(Back)
Footnote 672:Law of December 21, 1867, concerning Imperial Representation, § 13. Dodd, Ibid., I., 81.(Back)
Footnote 673:For a collection of the rules of order of the Austrian Parliament see K. and O. Neisser, Die Geschäftsordnung des Abgeordnetenhaus des Reichsrates, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1909).(Back)
Footnote 674:Issued under warrant of the much-controverted Section 14. See p.461.(Back)
Footnote 675:Law of December 21, 1867, concerning Imperial Representation, § 21. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 83. A work of value is G. Kolmer, Parlament und Verfassung in Österreich (Vienna, 1909).(Back)
Footnote 676:Lowell, Governments and Parties, II., 95.(Back)
Footnote 677:As at first reconstituted, the ministry contained a German Liberal, but he soon resigned.(Back)
Footnote 678:In the Chamber the Czechs, Poles, and Clericals controlled each approximately 55 votes.(Back)
Footnote 679:The forcefully expressed view of an eminent Austrian authority, written during the parliamentary deadlock which marked the close of the last century, is of interest. "His [Taaffe's] prolonged ministry had decisive effects upon the political life of Austria. It rendered forever impossible a return to Germanizing centralism. It filled the administrative hierarchy with Slavs, who, remaining Slavs, placed at the service of their national propaganda their official influence. In combatting the Liberal party it restored the power of the court, of the aristocracy, of the Church, and it facilitated the obnoxious restoration of clericalism, by which Austria to-day is dominated. It at the same time aroused and corrupted the nationalities and the parties. It habituated them to give rein unceasingly to their ambitions and to seek to attain them less by their own force and labor than by intrigue. The public demoralization, illustrated to-day so clearly by the Austrian crisis, is properly the result of the Taaffe system." M. L. Eisenmann, in Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, XII., 177.(Back)
Footnote 680:See p.467.(Back)
Footnote 681:On Austrian party politics see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II., 94-123; Drage, Austria-Hungary, Chaps, 1, 3, 12; K. Schwechler, Die österreichische Sozialdemokratie (Graz, 1907); S. Marmorek, L'Obstruction au parlement autrichien (Paris, 1908); and E. Benés, Le problème autrichien et la question tchèque; étude sur les luttes politiques des nationalités slaves en Autriche (Paris, 1908). Among valuable articles in periodicals may be mentioned: W. Beaumont, La crise du parlementarisme au Autriche; les élections législatives et la situation politique, inAnnales des Sciences Politiques, March 15, 1901; K. Kramer, La situation politique en Autriche, ibid., October 15, 1901; G. L. Jaray, L'Autriche nouvelle: sentiments nationaux et préoccupations sociales, ibid., May 15 and Sept. 15, 1908, and La physionomie nouvelle de la question austro-hongroise, inQuestions Diplomatiques et Coloniales, Dec. 16, 1910; Kolmer, La vie politique et parlementaire en Autriche, inRevue Politique et Parlementaire, July 10, 1911; and G. Blondel, Les dernières élections en Autriche-Hongrie, inLa Réforme Sociale, Aug. 1 and 15, 1911.(Back)
Footnote 682:Art. 7. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 86.(Back)
Footnote 683:Located at Vienna, Graz, Trieste, Innsbrück, Zara, Prague, Brünn, Cracow, and Lemberg.(Back)
Footnote 684:Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 84-85.(Back)
Footnote 685:When the class system of voting for members of the Reichsrath was on the point of being abolished by the law of January 26, 1907, there was raised the question as to whether a similar step should not be taken in respect to provincial elections. It was generally agreed, however, that the absence of an aristocratic upper chamber in the provincial diet renders the class system within the province not wholly undesirable. The provinces were encouraged to liberalize their franchise regulations, but not to abandon the prevailing electoral system. The province of Lower Austria led the way by increasing the membership of its diet from 79 to 127, to be elected as follows: 58 by manhood suffrage throughout the province, 31 by the rural communes, 16 by the large landholders, 15 by the towns, and 4 by the chambers of commerce. Two bishops and the rector of the University of Vienna were continued as members.(Back)
Footnote 686:Law of December 21, 1867, concerning Imperial Representation, § 12. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 79.(Back)
Footnote 687:J. Redlich, Das Wesen der österreichischen Kommunalverfassung (Leipzig, 1910).(Back)
Footnote 688:There is an interesting comparative study of theBulla Aureaand the Great Charter in E. Hantos, The Magna Carta of the English and of the Hungarian Constitution (London, 1904).(Back)
Footnote 689:The texts of all of the fundamental laws of Hungary at present in operation are printed in G. Steinbach, Die ungarischen Verfassungsgesetze (3d ed., Vienna, 1900). English translations of the more important are in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 93-111. The standard treatise on the Hungarian constitutional system is S. Rádo-Rotheld, Die ungarische Verfassung (Berlin, 1898), upon which is based A. de Bertha, La constitution hongroise (Paris, 1898). In both of these works the Magyar domination in Hungary is regarded with favor. A readable book is A. de Bertha, La Hongrie moderne de 1849 à 1901; étude historique (Paris, 1901). An older treatise, in three volumes, is A. von Virozil, Das Staatsrecht des Königsreichs Ungarn (Pest, 1865-1866). Valuable works of more recent publication include G. Steinbach, Die ungarischen Verfassungsgesetze (Vienna, 1906); A. Timon, Ungarische Verfassungs-und Rechtsgeschichte (2d ed., Berlin, 1908); H. Marczoll, Ungarisches Verfassungsrecht (Tübingen, 1909); and especially G. von Ferdinandy, Staats und Verwaltungsrecht des Königreichs Ungarn und seiner Nebenländer (Hanover, 1909). Worthy of mention is P. Matter, La constitution hongroise, inAnnales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques, July 15, 1889, and April 15, 1890. Excellent discussions for English readers will be found in J. Andrássy, The Development of Hungarian Constitutional Liberty (London, 1908); C. M. Knatchbull-Hugessen, The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation (London, 1908); and P. Alden (ed.), Hungary of To-day (London and New York, 1910). The celebration, in 1896, of the thousandth anniversary of the establishment of the Magyars in Europe was made the occasion of the publication of a multitude of more or less popular books devoted, as a rule, to a review of Hungarian national development. Among them may be mentioned: A. Vambéry, Hungary in Ancient and Modern Times (London, 1897); R. Chélard, La Hongrie millénaire (Paris, 1906); and M. Gelléri, Aus der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart des tausendjährigen Ungarn (Budapest, 1896).(Back)
Footnote 690:Law III. of 1848, § 3. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 94.(Back)
Footnote 691:Law III. of 1848, § 13. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 94.(Back)
Footnote 692:Law III. of 1848, § 37. Ibid., I., 97.(Back)
Footnote 693:Law VII. of 1885 altering the Organization of the Table of Magnates. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 100-105.(Back)
Footnote 694:The number is, of course, variable. The old Table of Magnates was a very large body, consisting of more than 800 members.(Back)
Footnote 695:Law V. of 1848 concerning the Election of Representatives, § 5. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 105.(Back)
Footnote 696:On the status of the Croatian kingdom see p.507.(Back)
Footnote 697:It is but fair to say that in Hungary proper the Magyar percentage in 1900 was 51.4.(Back)
Footnote 698:Of the 413 representatives of Hungary at Budapest in 1909, but 26 were non-Magyars, and after the elections of June, 1910, but 7.(Back)
Footnote 699:Equivalent to the completion of one-half of the course of secondary instruction.(Back)
Footnote 700:On the question of the Hungarian suffrage see S. Aberdam, La crise hongroise, inRevue Politique et Parlementaire, Oct. 10, 1909, and Les récentes crises politiques en Hongrie, inRevue des Sciences Politiques, May-June and July-Aug., 1912; G. Louis-Jaray, Le suffrage universel en Hongrie, inQuestions Diplomatiques et Coloniales, February 16, 1909; R. Henry, La crise hongroise, ibid., June 1, 1910; J. Mailath, Les élections générales hongroises, ibid., Aug. 16, 1910, and The Hungarian Elections, inContemporary Review, Oct., 1910; F. de Gerando, Le radicalisme hongroise, inRevue Politique et Parlementaire, July, 1911; A. Duboscq, La réforme électorale en Hongrie, inQuestions Diplomatiques et Coloniales, July 1, 1912; S. Huszadik, La Hongrie contemporaine et le suffrage universel (Paris, 1909); and B. Auerbach, Races et nationalités en Autriche-Hongrie (2d ed., Paris, 1910).(Back)
Footnote 701:Seatus Viator, Corruption and Reform in Hungary: a Study of Electoral Practice (London, 1911).(Back)
Footnote 702:King Francis Joseph I. has been absent upon this important occasion but once since 1867. Apponyi, in Alden, Hungary of To-day, 166.(Back)
Footnote 703:Ibid., 166-175.(Back)
Footnote 704:Law III. of 1848 concerning the Formation of a Responsible Hungarian Ministry, §§ 33-34. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 97.(Back)
Footnote 705:See p.495.(Back)
Footnote 706:For a brief account of Hungarian party politics to 1896 see Lowell, Governments and Parties, II., 152-161. For references to current periodicals see p.497.(Back)
Footnote 707:Until 1848 the grand-principality of Transylvania also enjoyed a considerable measure of autonomy. In 1848 it was united with Hungary. In 1849 it regained its ancient independence, but in 1867 it was again joined with Hungary. By legislation of 1868 and 1876 it was fully incorporated in the kingdom, 75 seats being awarded it in the Chamber of Deputies at Budapest in lieu of its provincial diet, which was abolished.(Back)
Footnote 708:Under the agreement 44 per cent of the Croatian-Slavonian revenue is retained for local needs and the remaining 56 per cent is devoted to common expenditures of the kingdom upon the army, public works, and the national debt. It is alleged, among other things, that this apportionment is unjust, and, furthermore, that the Hungarian authorities systematically divert local funds to national uses.(Back)
Footnote 709:An English version of the statute of 1868 regulating the status of Croatia-Slavonia is printed in Drage, Austria-Hungary, 767-783. For extended discussions of the subject see Drage,op. cit., Chap. ii; Geosztanyi, in P. Alden (ed.), Hungary of To-day, Chap. ii; G. Horn, Le Compromis de 1868 entre la Croatie et la Hongrie (Paris, 1907); G. de Montbel, La condition politique de la Croatie-Slavonie dans la monarchie austro-hongroise (Toulouse, 1909); and R. Gonnard, Entre Drave et Save; études économiques, politiques, et sociales sur la Croatie-Slavonie (Paris, 1911). See also R. Henry, La Hongrie, la Croatie, et les nationalités, inQuestions Diplomatiques et Coloniales, Aug. 16, 1907; J. Mailath Hongrie et Croatie, ibid., Nov. 1, 1907.(Back)
Footnote 710:Drage, Austria-Hungary. Chap. 12; H. Friedjung, Der Ausgleich mit Ungarn (Leipzig, 1877); Count Andrássy, Ungarns Ausgleich mit Österreich von Jahre 1867 (Leipzig, 1897); L. Eisenmann, Le compromis austro-hongroise (Paris, 1904). The Austrian and Hungarian texts of the Ausgleich laws, with German versions in parallel columns, are printed in I. Zolger, Der staatsrechtliche Ausgleich zwischen Österreich und Ungarn (Leipzig, 1911). English versions are in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 114-122, and Drage, Austria-Hungary, 744-750, 753-766. In a speech in the Hungarian Chamber November 23, 1903, Count István Tisza sought to demonstrate that, properly, there is no such thing as an Austro-Hungarian Ausgleich—that the two instruments of 1867 are not only of different date but are essentially independent, each being revocable at will by the power by which it was enacted. An able polemic in opposition to the views of Tisza is to be found in F. Tezner, Ausgleichsrecht und Ausgleichspolitik (Vienna, 1907). Tezner is an Austrian publicist.(Back)
Footnote 711:As an illustration of the sensitiveness of the Hungarians in the matter of their Austrian relations the fact may be cited that in 1889, after prolonged effort, an arrangement was procured in accordance with which the joint sovereign, in the capacity of commander of the armed forces, is known as EmperorandKing, not as Emperor-King.(Back)
Footnote 712:V. Duruy, L'Armée austro-hongroise, inRevue de Paris, Jan. 15, 1909; M. B., L'Armée autrichienne, inAnnales des Sciences Politiques, May, 1909; Com. Davin, La marine austro-hongroise, inQuestions Diplomatiques et Coloniales, Aug. 16, 1909.(Back)
Footnote 713:See pp.479-481,502-504.(Back)
Footnote 714:L. Louis-Jaray, Les relations austro-hongroises et le nouveau compromis économique, inQuestions Diplomatiques et Coloniales, Jan. 16 and Feb. 1, 1908; and Les dispositions économiques du nouveau compromis austro-hongrois, inRevue Économique Internationale, March, 1908.(Back)
Footnote 715:The texts of the organic acts of 1910 are printed in K. Lamp, Die Rechtsnatur der Verfassung Bosniens und der Herzegowina vom 17 Februar 1910, in Jahrbuch des Öffentlichen Rechts (Tübingen, 1911), V.; L. Geller, Bosnisch-herzegowinische Verfassungs und politische Grundgesetze (Vienna, 1910); and in Zeitschrift für Völkerrecht und Bundesstaatsrecht, IV., No. 5. See also F. Komlössy, Das Rechtsverhältniss Bosniens und des Herzegowina zu Ungarn (Pressburg, 1911).(Back)
Footnote 716:L. Delplace, La Belgique sous la domination française, 2 vols. (Louvain, 1896); L. de Lanzac de Laborie, La domination française en Belgique, 2 vols. (Paris, 1895).(Back)
Footnote 717:L. Legrand, La révolution française en Hollande: la république batave (Paris, 1894).(Back)
Footnote 718:These ceded territories comprised the ancestral domains of the house of Nassau which lay in Germany—Dietz, Siegen, Hadamar, and Dillenburg. The grand-duchy of Luxemburg was joined with the Netherlands by a personal union only, and in its capital, as a fortress of the German Confederation, was maintained a Prussian garrison. William dealt with the territory, however, precisely as if it were an integral part of his kingdom, extending to it the constitution of 1815 and administering its affairs through the agency of Dutch officials. At the time of the Belgian revolt, in 1830, Luxemburg broke away from Dutch rule and there ensued in the history of the grand-duchy an anomalous period during which the legal status of the territory was hotly disputed. In 1839 the Conference of London assigned to Belgium that portion of the grand-duchy which was contiguous to her frontiers and remanded the remainder to the status of an hereditary possession of the house of Nassau. In 1856 a separate constitution was granted the people of the territory, and in 1867, following the dissolution of the old Germanic Confederation, the grand-duchy was declared by an international conference at London to be a sovereign and independent (but neutral) state, under the guaranty of the powers. The connection between Luxemburg and Holland was thereafter purely dynastic. Until the death of William III., in 1890, the king of the Netherlands was also grand-duke of Luxemburg; but with the accession of Queen Wilhelmina the union of the two countries was terminated, by reason of the fact that females were at that time excluded from the throne of the grand-duchy. A law of 1907, however, vested the succession in the princess Marie, eldest daughter of the reigning Grand-Duke William; and upon the death of her father, Feb. 26, 1912, this heiress succeeded to the grand-ducal throne. The head of the state is the grand-duke (or grand-duchess). There is a council of state nominated by the sovereign and a chamber of deputies of 53 members, elected directly by the cantons for six years. The state has an area of but 998 square miles and a population (in 1910) of 259,891. P. Eyschen, Das Staatsrecht des Grossherzogtums Luxemburg (Tübingen, 1910).(Back)
Footnote 719:On the constitutional aspects of Dutch-Belgian history in the period 1815-1840 see Cambridge Modern History, X., Chap. 16 (bibliography, pp. 848-851); D. C. Boulger, History of Belgium, 2 vols. (London, 1909), I.; Stern, Geschichte Europas, IV., Chap. 2. General works of importance include J. B. Nothomb, Essai historique et politique sur la révolution belge, 3 vols. (4th ed., Brussels, 1876); C. White, The Belgian Revolution, 2 vols. (London, 1835); C. V. de Bavay, Histoire de la révolution belge de 1830 (Brussels, 1873); L. Hymans, Histoire politique et parlementaire de la Belgique de 1814 à 1830 (Brussels, 1869); J. J. Thonissen, La Belgique sous le règne de Leopold Ier, 3 vols. (Louvain, 1861).(Back)
Footnote 720:For that of Belgium see p.534.(Back)
Footnote 721:Cambridge Modern History, XI., Chap. 23.(Back)
Footnote 722:Arts. 194-197. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 118. The text of the constitution, in English translation, is printed in Dodd, II., 80-119. An excellent annotated edition of the instrument, in Dutch, is G. L. van den Helm, De Grondwet voor het koningrijk der Nederlanden (The Hague, 1889). An elaborate commentary is contained in J. T. Buijs, De Grondwet, 3 vols. (Arnheim, 1883-1888). One of the best expositions of the Dutch constitutional system is L. de Hartog, Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs der Niederlande (Freiburg, 1886), in Marquardsen's Handbuch, though this work antedates the amendments of 1887. More recent is J. van Hamel, Staats-und Verwaltungsrecht des Königreichs der Niederlande (Hanover, 1910).(Back)
Footnote 723:The official title is "The Kingdom of the Netherlands." In ordinary usage, however, the term "Holland" is more commonly employed.(Back)
Footnote 724:Wilhelmina was at the time but ten years of age. Until she attained her majority, August 31, 1898, a regency was exercised by the Queen-Dowager Emma. E. Lemonon, La succession au trône néerlandais, inQuestions Diplomatiques et Coloniales, December 1, 1908.(Back)
Footnote 725:Arts. 20-21. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 84.(Back)
Footnote 726:Art. 75. Ibid., II., 94.(Back)
Footnote 727:Art. 54. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 90.(Back)
Footnote 728:Art. 94. Ibid., II., 99.(Back)
Footnote 729:Save that treaties which provide for modifications of the boundaries of the state, or impose a public pecuniary obligation, or contain any other provision touching legal rights, may not be approved by the crown until after sanction shall have been accorded by the States-General, unless the power has been reserved to the crown by law to conclude such a treaty. Art. 59. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 91.(Back)
Footnote 730:Art. 61. Ibid., II., 91.(Back)
Footnote 731:Art. 61. Ibid.(Back)
Footnote 732:The provincial quotas are as follows: South Holland, 10; North Holland, 9; North Brabant and Gelderland, 6 each; Friesland, 4; Overyssel, Groningen, and Limberg, 3 each; Zealand, Utrecht, and Drenthe, 2 each. Prior to the constitutional revision of 1848 members of the upper house were appointed by the king.(Back)
Footnote 733:Art. 90. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 98.(Back)
Footnote 734:Art. 73. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 94.(Back)
Footnote 735:Art. 103. Ibid., II., 100.(Back)
Footnote 736:Art. 83. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 96.(Back)
Footnote 737:Art. 110. Ibid., II., 101.(Back)
Footnote 738:Art. 95. Ibid., II., 99.(Back)
Footnote 739:See p.523.(Back)
Footnote 740:On Dutch political parties see P. Verschave, La Hollande politique; le rôle des catholiques néerlandais depuis dix ans, inLe Correspondant, April 10, 1908; Les élections générales et la situation politique aux pays-bas: l'organisation de la campagne électorale, ibid., Nov. 25, 1909; and La Hollande politique; un parti catholique en pays protestant (Paris, 1910).(Back)
Footnote 741:Arts. 149-161. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 110-112.(Back)
Footnote 742:Arts. 162-166. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 112-113.(Back)
Footnote 743:Arts. 127-141. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, II., 105-108.(Back)
Footnote 744:Arts. 142-148. Ibid., II., 108-110.(Back)
Footnote 745:Art. 25. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 130.(Back)
Footnote 746:Art. 131. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 146. The text of the constitution of Belgium, in English translation, is printed in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 126-148, and in theAnnals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May, 1896, Supplement (translation by J. M. Vincent). French texts of the constitution and of important laws will be found in F. Larcier, Code politique et administratif de la Belgique (2d ed., Brussels, 1893). The standard commentary is J. J. Thonissen, La constitution belge (3d ed., Brussels, 1879). Works of value relating to the amendments of 1893-1894 are C. Thiebault et A. Henry, Commentaire législatif des articles révisés de la constitution belge (Brussels, 1894), and Beltjens, La constitution belge révisée (Liège, 1895). The best treatises on the Belgian constitutional system are P. Errera, Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Belgien (Tübingen, 1909), and Traité de droit public belge: droit constitutionnel, droit administratif (Paris, 1908), and O. Orban, Le droit constitutionnel de la Belgique, 3 vols. (Liège, 1906-1911). An older but excellent work is A. Giron, La droit public de la Belgique (Brussels, 1884). A convenient elementary book on the subject is F. Masson et C. Wiliquet, Manuel de droit constitutionnel (7th ed., Brussels, 1904). A useful volume is E. Flandin, Institutions politiques de l'Europe contemporaine (2d ed., Paris, 1907), I.(Back)
Footnote 747:This privilege was conferred by an amendment (Art. 61) adopted September 7, 1893.(Back)
Footnote 748:Arts. 60, 79-85. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 136, 138-139.(Back)
Footnote 749:The minister of war, regularly an active military official, has been usually not a legislative member. Aside from this one post, however, the custom of selecting ministers exclusively from the chambers has been followed almost as rigorously in Belgium as in Great Britain. And so largely are the ministers taken from the lower house that the Senate not infrequently has no representative at all in the cabinet.(Back)
Footnote 750:Arts. 86-91. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 139-140.(Back)
Footnote 751:Arts. 63-64, 89. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 137, 140.(Back)
Footnote 752:Dupriez, Les Ministres, I., 210-230; O. Kerchove de Denterghem, De la responsabilité des ministres dans le droit public belge (Paris, 1867).(Back)
Footnote 753:Art. 78. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 138.(Back)
Footnote 754:Arts. 66-67. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 137-138.(Back)
Footnote 755:Art. 58. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 135.(Back)
Footnote 756:They may not be, and may not have been within two years preceding their election, members of the assembly which returns them.(Back)
Footnote 757:Art. 56. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 135.(Back)
Footnote 758:This is true also of the Senate.(Back)
Footnote 759:It will be remembered that for the purpose of considering constitutional amendments the chambers meet in joint session.(Back)
Footnote 760:The Nyssens scheme was brought to the attention of the Belgian people through the medium of a pamphlet entitled "Le suffrage universel tempéré."(Back)
Footnote 761:Art. 47. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 132-133.(Back)
Footnote 762:On the earlier aspects of Belgian electoral reform see J. Van den Heuvel, De la révision de la constitution (Brussels, 1892); L. Arnaud, La révision belge, 1890-1893 (Paris and Brussels, 1894); La réforme électorale en Belgique, inAnnales de l'École Libre des Sciences Politiques, July, 1894; E. Van der Smissen, L'État actuel des partis politiques en Belgique, ibid., Sept., 1898. An important work by a leading socialist and a deputy from Brussels is L. Bertrand, Histoire de la démocratie et du socialisme en Belgique depuis 1830, 2 vols. (Brussels and Paris, 1906-1907). Mention may be made also of E. Vandervelde et J. Destree, Le socialisme en Belgique (2d ed., Paris, 1903) and the older work of E. de Laveleye, Le parti clérical en Belgique (Brussels, 1874). A careful study is J. Barthélemy, L'organisation du suffrage et l'expérience belge (Paris, 1912). In 1910-1911 the number of parliamentary electors was 1,697,619, of whom 993,070 had one vote, 395,866 had two votes, and 308,683 had three votes.(Back)
Footnote 763:Another interesting proposal in 1893 was that at the discretion of the crown a legislative measure might be submitted to direct popular vote. By reason of the fear that such a scheme would vest in the crown an excess of power the experiment was not tried.(Back)
Footnote 764:In point of fact, the lists as published and as placed before the voter are indicated merely by number.(Back)
Footnote 765:Valuable books dealing with proportional representation in Belgium are G. Lachapelle, La représentation proportionnelle en France et en Belgique (Paris, 1911); F. Goblet d'Alviella, La représentation proportionelle en Belgique, and La représentation proportionelle intégrale (Paris, 1910); Barriéty, La représentation proportionelle en Belgique (Paris, 1906); Dubois, La représentation proportionelle soumise à l'expérience belge (Lille, 1906); and J. Humphreys, Proportional Representation (London, 1911). A careful account is contained in the Report and Evidence of the British Royal Commission on Electoral Systems (1910), Report, Cd. 5,163; Evidence, Cd. 5,352. Useful articles are: E. Mahaim, Proportional Representation and the Debates upon the Electoral Question in Belgium, inAnnals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, May, 1900; E. Van der Smissen, La représentation proportionnelle en Belgique et les élections générales de mai 1900, inAnnales des Sciences Politiques, July-Sept., 1900; and J. Humphreys, Proportional Representation in Belgium, inContemporary Review, Oct., 1908.(Back)
Footnote 766:It will be recalled that the term of deputies is four years, half retiring every two years. There is, therefore, a parliamentary election, but not throughout the entire country, every second year.(Back)
Footnote 767:In the five provinces of Brabant, Anvers, Namur, West Flanders, and Luxemburg, the term of whose deputies was about to expire.(Back)
Footnote 768:August 15, 1911, Socialists and Liberals combined in an anti-plural-vote demonstration in Brussels in which 150,000 people are estimated to have taken part. For an able defense of plural voting under the system prevailing in Belgium see L. Dupriez, L'Organisation du suffrage universel en Belgique. Cf. E. Van der Smissen, La question du suffrage universel en Belgique, inAnnales des Sciences Politiques, Sept., 1902. On recent aspects of Belgian politics consult L. Dupriez, L'évolution des partis politiques en Belgique et les élections de mai 1906, ibid., Sept., 1906; A. Kahn, Les élections belges, inQuestions Diplomatiques et Coloniales, June 16, 1910; and J. Van den Heuvel, Les élections belges, inLe Correspondant, June 25, 1912. J. H. Humphreys, Proportional Representation in Belgium, inContemporary Review, Oct., 1908, contains a concrete account of the elections of 1908. A useful volume is A. Fromes, Code électoral belge (Brussels, 1908).(Back)
Footnote 769:Arts. 70-72. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 137.(Back)
Footnote 770:Arts. 92-107. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 140-142. Roubion, La séparation des pouvoirs administratif et judiciaire en Belgique (Paris, 1905).(Back)
Footnote 771:Arts. 108-109. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 142-143.(Back)
Footnote 772:Not including the canton, which exists purely for judicial purposes. It is the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace.(Back)
Footnote 773:Antwerp, Brabant, East Flanders, West Flanders, Hainaut, Liège, Limburg, Luxemburg, and Namur.(Back)
Footnote 774:In 1902, 1,146,482 communal electors cast a total of 2,007,704 votes. In 1910-1911 there were 1,440,141 provincial, and 1,300,514 communal, voters.(Back)
Footnote 775:Dupriez, Les Ministres, 262-276; E. de Laveleye, Local Government and Taxation, in Cobden Club Essays (London, 1875).(Back)
Footnote 776:The nominal sovereign was Margaret's great-nephew, Eric of Pomerania, who was elected at a convention of representatives of the three kingdoms held simultaneously with the establishment of the Union. Eric was deposed in 1439.(Back)
Footnote 777:R. N. Bain, Scandinavia, a Political History of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (Cambridge, 1905), Chap. 3; P. B. Watson, The Swedish Revolution under Gustavus Vasa (London, 1889).(Back)
Footnote 778:In the Swedish diet the peasantry constituted a fourth estate, but in Denmark no political power was possessed by this class.(Back)
Footnote 779:Bain, Scandinavia, 266.(Back)
Footnote 780:For sketches of Danish political history prior to 1814 see Bain, Scandinavia, Chaps. 2, 4, 7, 10, 15; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, III., Chap. 14, IV., Chap. 15; VI., Chap. 17; VII., Chap. 23; IX., Chap. 23. An important Danish work is P. F. Barfod, Danmarks Historie, 1319-1536 (Copenhagen, 1885).(Back)
Footnote 781:The ordinance establishing the provincial assemblies was promulgated May 28, 1831, but the assemblies did not come into existence until after the supplementary decrees of May 15, 1834. In 1843 Iceland was granted "home rule," with the right to maintain an independent legislature.(Back)
Footnote 782:Holstein and Lauenburg were German in population and were members of the German Confederation. Southern Schleswig also was inhabited by German-speaking people, though the duchy did not belong to the Confederation. Schleswig and Holstein had been joined with Denmark under a precarious form of union since the Middle Ages. Lauenburg was acquired, with the assent of the Allies, in 1814-1815 in partial compensation for the loss of Norway.(Back)
Footnote 783:Bain, Scandinavia, Chap. 16; Cambridge Modern History, XI., Chap. 24 (bibliography, pp. 961-962); Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, X., Chap. 18; C. F. Allen, Histoire de Danemark depuis les temps les plus reculés jusqu'à nos jours (Copenhagen, 1878).(Back)
Footnote 784:Cambridge Modern History, XI., Chap. 16; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, XI., Chap. 12; J. W. Headlam, Bismarck and the Foundation of the German Empire (New York, 1909), Chap. 8; H. Delbrück, Der Deutsch-Dänische Krieg, 1864 (Berlin, 1905).(Back)
Footnote 785:Arts. 80-94. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 278-280.(Back)
Footnote 786:Art. 95. Ibid., I., 280.(Back)
Footnote 787:The text of the Danish constitution, in English translation, is printed in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 267-281; H. Weitemeyer, Denmark (London, 1891), 203-217; and British and Foreign State Papers, LVIII. (1867-1868), 1,223 ff. The best brief treatise on the Danish constitutional system is C. Goos and H. Hansen, Das Staatsrecht des Königsreichs Dänemark (Freiburg, 1889), in Marquardsen's Handbuch. A Danish edition of this work was issued at Copenhagen in 1890. The best extended commentaries are H. Matzen, Den Danske Statsforfatningsret (3d ed., Copenhagen, 1897-1901) and C. G. Holck, Den Danske Statsforfatningsret (Copenhagen, 1869). T. H. Aschehoug, Den Nordiske Statsret (Copenhagen, 1885) is a useful study, from a comparative point of view, of the constitutional law of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.(Back)
Footnote 788:Art. 1. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 267.(Back)
Footnote 789:Prince Christian became, in 1863, King Christian IX.(Back)
Footnote 790:One original text of this pledge must be preserved in the archives of the crown, another in those of the Rigsdag. Art. 7. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 267.(Back)
Footnote 791:Art. 12. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 268.(Back)
Footnote 792:Art. 34. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 272. The status of the Faröe Islands is that of an integral portion of the kingdom, not that of a dependency. It is analogous to the status of Algeria in the French Republic. No other outlying Danish territory is represented in the Rigsdag.(Back)
Footnote 793:For details see Art. 37 of the constitution. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 272.(Back)
Footnote 794:It is of interest to observe that Denmark was the first nation to make use of a system of proportional representation. The principle was introduced originally as early as 1855, in the constitution promulgated in that year, and it was retained through the constitutional changes of 1863 and 1866, although its application was restricted to the election of members of the upper chamber. An account of its introduction is contained in La représentation proportionnelle (Paris, 1888), published by the French Society for the Study of Proportional Representation.(Back)
Footnote 795:Art. 30. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 271.(Back)
Footnote 796:Art. 53. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 274.(Back)
Footnote 797:A group which, after the formation of the Deuntzer ministry, split off from the Conservatives in the upper chamber.(Back)
Footnote 798:The salient facts relating to the political history of Denmark since 1870 may be gleaned from the successive volumes of theAnnual Register. Works of importance dealing with the subject include N. Neergaard, Danmarks Riges Historie siden 1852 (Copenhagen, 1909); H. Holm, Forligets förste Rigsdagssamling 1894-1895 (Copenhagen, 1895), and Kampen om Ministeriet Reedtz-Thott (Copenhagen, 1897); H. Barfod, Hans Majestaet Kong Christian IX. (Copenhagen, 1888); and A. Thorsöe, Kong Christian den Niende (Copenhagen, 1905).(Back)
Footnote 799:At the age of sixty-five they may be retired on full salary.(Back)
Footnote 800:Arts. 68-74. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 276-277.(Back)
Footnote 801:The bill was carried in the Folkething by a vote of 57 to 42; in the Landsthing by a vote of 38 to 5.(Back)
Footnote 802:Bain, Scandinavia, Chaps. 8, 11; Cambridge Modern History, IV. Chaps. 5, 20; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, III., Chap. 14; IV.; Chap. 15.(Back)
Footnote 803:Bain, Scandinavia, Chaps. 12-13; Cambridge Modern History, V., Chaps. 18-19; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, VI., Chap. 17.(Back)
Footnote 804:Gustavus IV., being a minor at his accession, did not assume control of the government until November 1, 1796.(Back)
Footnote 805:See p.589. Bain, Scandinavia, Chap. 14; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, VII., Chap. 23; VIII., Chap. 23.(Back)
Footnote 806:Bain, Scandinavia, Chaps. 4, 5, 7, 10, 15; H. H. Boyesen, A History of Norway from the Earliest Times (2d ed., London, 1900).(Back)