Századok – 1994

Tanulmányok - Fábiánné Kiss Erzsébet: A honárulók vagyonának lefoglalása és kezelése – az 1848–49-es pénzügyi adminisztráció egyik speciális feladata I/46

A HONÁRULÓK VAGYONÁNAK ELKOBZÁSA 1848-1849-BEN 89 Volt kincstári javak átvétele a felelős minisztérium által: 1) mehádiai fürdők' 1849. jún. 10-én jelenti Fülepp Lipót kormánybiztos (Krassó megye és oláh végvidék) a lefoglalást. Indok: korábban is állami tulajdon volt. — Az egyes „üzletágakat" haszonbérlők kezelték, amit ny. tisztek felügyeltek az állam részéről (fogadó, fürdő, bormérés, vendéglő). A kormányzó általában szorgalmazta a bánsági javak rendezését és hasznosítását, pl. a Herkulesfürdő magánkézbe adását (1849. jún. 2.). 2) a pesti porcelángyár átvétele állami kezelésbe, 1849. június végén. 3) temesvári (józsefvárosi) volt cs. dohánygyár átvétele: gr. Vécsey tábornok, az 5. hadtest részéről. Leltár, 1849. jún. 11.: dohányfajták és felszerelés. (1849. jún. 24.) 4) a nagykikindai kiváltságos kincstári kerület megszüntetését lásd: a jegyzékben, mivel ez kifejezetten a lázadás miatti büntetést jelentette. DISTRAINT AND MANAGEMENT OF TRAITORS' PROPERTY AS A SPECIAL TASK OF FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION IN 1848^19 by Fábiánná Kiss Erzsébet (Summary) The author analyzes the decrees and measures passed and taken by the Hungarian diet and government of 1848-49 for the confiscation of the traitors' properties. The summary jurisdiction with the aim of securing public order and the martial law courts involving only soldiers are not discussed in the paper. In the autumn of 1848, when the conflict with Austria began to deapen, it became increasingly obvious that Act IX of 1723 still prevailing could not be applied to cases of treason in the given political situation any more, so the diet passed rather belatedly the so-called martial law of February 13, 1849. None of the paragraphs provided for confiscation but it was held natural on the basis of earlier practice in such cases. The author points out the shortcomings of the martial law and the complementary decrees giving the text of the latter ones in the Appendix. She also discusses the abuses caused by non-competent and contradictiory measures. The decrees did namely not specify unequivocally the circle of those authorized to take measures and even the competency of the various ministries was uncertain. The situation was made still more complicated by Minister of Finance Duschek Ferenc who consciously slowed down the process referring to his observance of the old legal procedures. The author points out that the attitude of the Hungarian government and the Minister of Justice was also aiming at legality but differed from the ideas of the Minister of Finance. Their aim was not to preserve the old principals but to dissolve the martial courts in the country and set up a central court controlled by the government in order to „keep the law strict but at the same time within due limits". This effect was based on considerations of political ethies and at the same time also on the much quoted sense of the Hungarian politicians coming from the nobility towards legal matters. It can by no menas be branded as opportunism and a step towards compromise. On the basis of contemporary documents the author comes to the conclusion that the confiscation of the traitors' property did not mean a considerable extra gain for the treasury. In the Appendix she gives the detailed case histories of more than one hundered sequestrations and confiscations to support and illustrate her statements. She also offers a short review of the conditions in Tïansyfvania and of the confiscation practice in Austria as well.