Szőcs Sebestyén: Budapest székesfőváros részvétele az 1905-1906. évi nemzeti ellenállásban - Várostörténeti tanulmányok 1. (Budapest, 1977)

6. Befejezés

the negotiations between the king and of the opposition party coalition which won majority in the elections held in January, 1905. The coalition rigidly insisted on its so-called military claims whose fulfilment Franz Joseph was inclined by no means to approve of, being anxious of the unity of the monarchy's military force. That was the main cause why the coalition could not take over the government. The appointment of the Fejérváry cabinet was received by the Hungarian public opinion with indignation, the newly appointed cabinet was considered being illegitimate and anti-constitutional, and a struggle was commenced against it at once. The struggle was declared at the session of the Parliament on June 21th, where a vote of non-confidence against the government was followed by the setting up of a Directing Committee in whose name baron Dezső Bánffy called the municipalities for "national resistance". The essence of the call was that the municipalities were to refuse the delivering of the taxes not voted by the Parliament, to the cabinet which otherwise had no statutory assignment and the contribution also not voted by the Parliament. Bánffy's call was kept within the legitimate frames, Pest county's general assembly, however, took a stand on June 20th, 1905 concerning the appointment of the cabinet that it would nol make available any tax and recruit for the government. That escalated the range of the resistance: it comprised the refusal to deliver the unsolicited taxes and to contribute to voluntary recruiting. At this point the resistance exceeded the legitimate limits. Budapest municipa authority dealt with the assignment of the Fejérváry cabinet and with the question of joining to the national resistance in the assembly held on June 28th, 1905. The capital's joining to the resistance was an open question: the municipal authority's majority were a willing followei of the government in power and certain reserves raised towards the Fejérváry cabinet notwithstanding, considered any transgression by the capital at least doubtful. At the same time their joining to the resistance gave opportunity to declare their "patriotism" in a harmless although spectacular way. At last this latter aspect won: the municipal authority declared its joining to the resistance movement. Although the resistance resolution did not put into words explicitely the refusa of delivering the unsolicited taxes and the rejection of the contribution to voluntary recruiting yet the debate held in the assembly and the council's standpoint regarding the committee resolution which was formulated on July 13th, did not leave any doubt that the essence o the resolution was the refusal of the unsolicited taxes and of the voluntary recruiting. The government reacted to the events the predictable way: the Minister for Home Affair: repealed the part of the committee resolution pertaining to the withdrawal of the unsolicitee direct taxes. The mayor informed the Lord Mayor about the repeal on July 20th, and at the same time mad< him acquainted with the next circumstance: according to relevant paragraphs of the capita law the Minister's for Home Affairs order could come into forced pending the committei invalidating its own resolution passed on June 28th. The mayor's report was tabled by the Lord Mayor to the Minister for Home Affairs in thi middle of August. The Minister replied to the memorandum in the 15th of October statim that he unchangedly maintained the part of his decree pertaining to the voluntary taxes and a 186