Page:The New Europe - Volume 7.pdf/180

in consequence taken to proclaim the union of Transylvania with Hungary. That was not to the liking of the Roumanians. But if, by an act of union, an end was likely to be put to the old and bitter feud, enemy of all peaceful progress, the leaders of the Roumanians were prepared to support the idea—on one condition: that the union should be the expression of two independent wills, and that it should inaugurate the free co-operation of two free and equal factors. Kossuth, the Liberal, refused. In vain did refugees from Muntania, anxious to see autocracy at bay, attempt to mediate between and secure the co-operation of their Transylvanian co-nationals and the Magyar leaders, offering to enlist a Roumanian legion in support of the Magyar revolution. The Hungarian Premier, Count Batthyány, declared that an agreement was only possible on the basis of the fundamental principle of the supremacy of the Magyar element.

Confronted with the uncompromising attitude of the Magyars, the Roumanian peasants assembled 40,000 strong outside the town of Blaj (Blasendorf) on 16 May, 1878. They proclaimed their allegiance to the Austrian Crown, and each and all of them took the oath, beautiful in its simplicity, impressive in its sentiments and determination, “ever to support, by righteous and legitimate means, our Roumanian nationality . . . . our creed and our language, as well as liberty, equality, and fraternity. In accordance with those principles I will respect the nationality of all the inhabitants of Transylvania, claiming from them equal respect for my own nationality. I will not attempt to dominate anybody, but neither will I suffer to be dominated by anybody. I will co-operate to further the welfare of humanity, of the Roumanian nation, and of the Fatherland. So help me God.”

Now, when once more the hope of liberation is darkened by the course of events, there must be many a Transylvanian cottage in which the oath of the ancestors has become the nightly prayer of the suffering Roumanians; while the Magyars, freed now of the Russian danger as they were then of the Austrian chain, clamour in victorious exultation: “Le despotisme est mort, vive le despotisme!”

We have received the following note from Mr. S. de Madariaga:—

“With reference to La ‘Révolution argentine,’ reviewed in your last issue, allow me to state that the ‘wars of liberation’ in South America were not directed against Spain but against the Spanish State which Spain, no less than the colonies, suffered at the time. This is strikingly illustrated by the fact that many, if not most, of the ‘liberators’ were Spaniards, born in Spain, notably the greatest of them all, San Martin, who was an officer in the Spanish army. On this fact, at last proclaimed nowadays both in North and South America, is founded the present Ibero-American movement.”

In view of the persistent attempts of our pacifist press to represent Count Czernin as a “Slav” and therefore as the advocate of conciliation among the Austro-Hungarian races, it may be interesting to quote the proposal of the Prager Tagblatt, the organ of the German Liberals in Bohemia. “It would be an excellent thing,” this paper writes on 30 April, “if the Germans of Austria could persuade Count Czernin to remain in political life in some kind of capacity. He has his mandate for the Herrenhaus, but at the next election he could win any German popular mandate. With his popularity he might succeed in making himself the leader of a new great German party. Mirabeau too had the rank of Count, and like him, Count Czernin does not absolutely require election . . . Count Czernin, the most outstanding personality among Austrian statesmen in recent years, will now be able to show us if he is a politician or a real statesman.”