AZ ORSZÁGOS SZÉCHÉNYI KÖNYVTÁR ÉVKÖNYVE 1972. Budapest (1975)

III. Könyvtörténeti és művelődéstörténeti tanulmányok - Jeszenszky Géza: A Times és Magyarország az 1904—1906-os politikai válság idején - Hungary and The Times in the political crisis of 1904—1906

Hungary and The Times in the political crisis of 1904-1906 G. JESZENSZKY The purpose of the essay is to examine the reflections of The Times on the Hungarian constitutional and political crisis of 1904 — 06. This is part of a larger study which aims to trace the gradual change in the British image of Hungary in the early 20th century. In addition to the frequent and detailed reports and the 18 leading articles appearing in The Times on Hungary between November 15. 1904 and April 8. 1906, the article made use of the letters exchanged between the Vienna correspondent, Henry Wickham STEED on the one hand and Charles F. Moberly BELL, the Manager, and Valentine CHIROL, the Head of the Foreign Department on the other (to be found in the Archives of The Times) and also some private letters of STEED written to various Hungarian personalities (mainly held by the Manuscript Department of the National Széchényi Library). In his first years in Vienna STEED had a definitely favourable opinion on Hungary. In the fight of the Parliamentary Opposition against the reform of the standing orders of the Lower House (aming to wipe out obstruction) STEED strongly supported István TISZA, the Liberal leader, whose election defeat caused a great disappointment for The Times, too. But then STEED accepted the nationalist demands of the Independentist Opposition without a word of criticism in the hope that on such a basis a new Ministry can quickly take office and thus the international position of the Monarchy can be maintained unimpaired. In all his subsequent actions and views, STEED was led by this latter consideration, bacause he still hoped that the Monarchy was able to play an independent role in international affairs, and could provide a counterbalance against Germany within the Triple Alliance. Seeing the unwillingness of the EmperorKing FRANCIS JOSEPH to meet the wishes of the victorious opposition, now forming a Coalition, STEED came to advocate a compromise, which the more extreme wing of the Coalition refused as a betrayal of their principles. While until the settlement of the crisis STEED kept on urging the Coalition leaders to consider the international aspects of the conflict and to come to terms with the Crown, CHIROL and BELL were more willing to see a point in the Coalition's uncompromising attitude. This discrepancy was increasingly discernible comparing the reports and the leading articles appearing in the paper (esp. in that of July 8. 1905), though both Printing House Square and STEED based all their arguments addressed to the Coalition on the best traditions of Anglo-Hungarian friendship, accepting even the similarity of the constitutional development of the two countries. By the light of the dissolution of the Swedish-Noswegian union and the growing bitterness of the two parties in Hungary the prospects for the quick termination of the crisis became rather low. Now STEED'S views on Hungary became increasingly critical, especially as the learned more and more about the political thinking of the Hungarian ruling classes and about the social conditions of the country. This course was strengthened by critical commentaries received from such men as Professor VÁMBÉRY, the well-known Oriental scholar, while another impetus was the tone of the Coalition press towards the personality of the correspondent. When STEED'S arguments failed to induce the Coalition into submission, he tried to warn the Hungarians that they had too many enemies who aimed both at their territory and freedom. On October 6. 1905 STEED explained CHIROL the reasons of his strong line, which — together with his important article of October 7. — shows that by this time he was well aware of most bad features of Hungarian society, but still concluded that "the maintenance of Magyar hegemony in Hungary is eminently desirable". The October programme of the unparliamentary FEJÉRVÁRY-government (e.g. universal suffrage) filled STEED with hope that "a democratic impulse" was given to Hungarian affairs. In February 1906 (in a letter sent to Leo AMERY) he privately came to speak of the necessity of federalizing the Habsburg Monarchy, but when in early April the Coalition made a pact with the Crown, which gave power to the elements STEED most disliked, the correspondent welcomed the news with joy, as the foreign political capacity of the Monarchy seemed to have returned. But with The Times, and especially with STEED. the traditional sympathy for liberal Hungary never returned to the pre-crisis level, 408