Nagy János: Rendi ellenzék és kormánypárt az 1751. évi országgyűlésen - Disszertációk Budapest Főváros Levéltárából 7. (Budapest, 2020)
The opposition of the estates and the loyalists at the Diet of 1750 (summary)
The least influential group within the diet, the deputies of royal free boroughs As it has been pointed out innumerable times, this group hardly had any say in the process: their silent majority participated as passive observers, and on the rare occasions when they did speak at all, it was only when topics concerning their town or towns in general were being discussed. The frequent conflicts between the free royal boroughs and the counties were somewhat softened by the fact that the deputies of free royal boroughs (similarly to other administrative positions in towns) were often educated, town-dwelling nobles or townspeople who had been awarded titles. These technically noble-ranking free royal borough deputies identified with the interests of their delegating communities, and through their family and social ties played a kind of intermediary role between the county nobles and the town councils. The opinion leaders within the group of royal free borough’s deputies also came from this background (like those from Kőszeg and Szeged). Examining the correspondence of the deputies of Lőcse yields insights into the political motivations and aspirations of a town in the north of Hungary. Through lobbying directly with government authorities they could champion the causes of their respective communities by personally presenting their grievances, oiling the works with suitable gifts. In turn, the agents of the government also had a lot of opportunity politically ‘orientate’ the free royal boroughs, since the feudal overlord of these towns was by definition the royal treasury, which meant that the magistrates delegated to Pozsony were dependant on it for their livelihood. The 'silent revolution of the county deputies The complex politico-, socio- and discursive historical study of the diet of 1751 yielded some methodological novelties as well. Thanks to this research, I hope, the actual participants of estates politics have come to the forefront and the constantly shifting individual interests and the rhetorical-conceptual framework background determining their political actions have become easier to understand. Narrowing the scope of study has brought about a shift in perspective. Rather than just concentrating on the developments of twocomponent relationship of monarch vs estates, the book gives a lot of space to the discussion of the differences in approach and outlook between the different groups within both camps. Beyond the simplified model of ‘loyalists’ vs ‘opposition’ I have put the focus on the individual political actors voicing their different interests in the debates, and their mode of communication. The
