Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 36. (1983)
COONS, Ronald E.: Reflections of a Josephinist. Two Addenda to count Franz Hartig's „Genesis der Revolution in Österreich im Jahre 1848”
212 Ronald E. Coons resigned from the Hofkammer. Since Kolowrat continued to occupy a position of considerable power, Mettemich’s triumph was by no means complete. Nevertheless, changes in personnel did weaken Kolowrat’s hand. At the Hofkammer, Eichhoff was replaced by Baron Kiibeck, who had long resented Kolowrat’s influence over financial policy and who had increasingly come to side with Metternich in the chancellor’s feud with Kolowrat. Furthermore, in the important function of reviewing financial policy for the emperor, Kolowrat was replaced by Hartig, who was also appointed to head the political section of the Staatsrat 27 28). Hartig’s analysis of the failings of the Austrian administrative system of the Vormärz which appears in the opening sections of the Genesis is based largely upon his experiences in Vienna between 1840 and 1848. Some of his most damaging criticisms he reserved, however, for the second of his addenda to the pamphlet’s third edition. Hartig’s highly negative assessment of Kolowrat is especially important because it reveals how closely he came during the 1840s to identify with Metternich and his cause. If, as has been suggested, Hartig sought to mediate between the chancellor and Kolowrat in the interest of more effective governmentts), he did not do so as an impartial party. Soon after his arrival in Vienna he began, indeed, to cooperate so closely with Metternich at the Staats- kanzlei and Kiibeck at the Hofkammer that it is possible to speak of an informal political alliance that united them against Kolowrat29). Over details of policy there were disagreements. In three essential areas there was also unity. Above all, Harting and Kiibeck, like Metternich, believed in the primacy of the central government and defended its interests against attempts by the provincial diets to exert influence over internal affairs30). Secondly, they advocated administrative reforms that would speed bureaucratic procedures, restore the Staatsrat to its proper func27) see, e. g. Anton Springer Geschichte Österreichs seit dem Wiener Frieden 1809 1 (Leipzig 1863) 463—465, and Friedrich Walter Die österreichische Zentralverwaltung 2/1/2/2 (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für neuere Geschichte Österreichs 42, Wien 1956) 264—267. 28) Czoernig Biographische Skizze 8. 29) On the close relations between Metternich, Kiibeck, and Hartig see Egon R a d v a n y Metternich’s Projects for Reform in Austria (The Hague 1971) 126—127, who adds to the alliance Count Ficquelmont, Metternich’s associate at the Staatskanzlei. For an indication of Hartig’s close relations with Metternich on the eve of the revolution see the diary he kept in this period, in which he noted each day’s weather and the official or social occasions he attended. Between January 1 and March 10, 1848, Hartig was Metternich’s guest socially on fifteen evenings; he was also the guest of Count Sedlnitzky on three occasions. Hartig’s entry for March 13, 1848, reads laconically „Wolkig. Revolution“: Státni oblastní archiv íitenice RA Hartig inv. c. 291. 30) On Kübeck’s centralism see my forthcoming article The Pre-Revolutionary Origins of Kübeck’s Neoabsolutism, to be published under the auspices of the Institut für Europäische Geschichte in Mainz; on Mettemich’s centralism see the discussion in Alan S k e d Metternich and the Federalist Myth in Crisis
