Volume I—A To Elba (continued 14)

W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 3, chapter 10.

See, also, OSCANS.

AUSPICES, Taking the.

"The Romans, in the earlier ages of their history, never entered upon any important business whatsoever, whether public or private, without endeavouring, by means of divination, to ascertain the will of the gods in reference to the undertaking. … This operation was termed 'sumere auspicia;' and if the omens proved unfavourable the business was abandoned or deferred. … No meeting of the Comitia Curiata nor of the Comitia Centuriata could be held unless the auspices had been previously taken. … As far as public proceedings were concerned, no private individual, even among the patricians, had the right of taking auspices. This duty devolved upon the supreme magistrate alone. … In an army this power belonged exclusively to the commander-in-chief; and hence all achievements were said to be performed under his auspices, even although he were not present. … The objects observed in taking these auspices were birds, the class of animals from which the word is derived ('Auspicium ab ave spicienda'). Of these, some were believed to give indications by their flight … others by their notes or cries … while a third class consisted of chickens ('pulli') kept in cages. When it was desired to obtain an omen from these last, food was placed before them, and the manner in which they comported themselves was closely watched. … The manner of taking the auspices previous to the Comitia was as follows:—The magistrate who was to preside at the assembly arose immediately after midnight on the day for which it had been summoned, and called upon an augur to assist him. … With his aid a region of the sky and a space of ground, within which the auspices were observed, were marked out by the divining staff ('lituus') of the augur. … This operation was performed with the greatest care. … In making the necessary observations, the president was guided entirely by the augur, who reported to him the result."

W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 4.

ALSO IN: W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 13.

See, also, AUGUR.

{190}

AUSTERLITZ, Battle of.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

AUSTIN, Stephen F., and the settlement of Texas.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.

AUSTIN CANONS, OR CANONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

"About the middle of the 11th century an attempt had been made to redress the balance between the regular and secular clergy, and restore to the latter the influence and consideration in spiritual matters which they had, partly by their own fault, already to a great extent lost. Some earnest and thoughtful spirits, distressed at once by the abuse of monastic privileges and by the general decay of ecclesiastical order, sought to effect a reform by the establishment of a stricter and better organized discipline in those cathedral and other churches which were served by colleges of secular priests. … Towards the beginning of the twelfth century the attempts at canonical reform issued in the form of what was virtually a new religious order, that of the Angustinians, or Canons Regular of the order of S. Angustine. Like the monks and unlike the secular canons, from whom they were carefully distinguished, they had not only their table and dwelling but all things in common, and were bound by a vow to the observance of their rule, grounded upon a passage in one of the letters of that great father of the Latin Church from whom they took their name. Their scheme was a compromise between the old fashioned system of canons and that of the monastic confraternities; but a compromise leaning strongly towards the monastic side. … The Austin canons, as they were commonly called, made their way across the channel in Henry's reign."

K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: E. L. Cutts, Scenes and Characters of the Middle Ages, chapter 3.

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800. Discovery and early exploration. The founding of the penal colonies at Sydney and Norfolk Island.

"Australia has had no Columbus. It is even doubtful if the first navigators who reached her shores set out with any idea of discovering a great south land. At all events, it would seem, their achievements were so little esteemed by themselves and their countrymen that no means were taken to preserve their names in connexion with their discoveries. Holland long had the credit of bringing to light the existence of that island-continent, which until recent years was best known by her name. In 1861, however, Mr. Major, to whom we are indebted for more recent research upon the subject, produced evidence which appeared to demonstrate that the Portuguese had reached the shores of Australia in 1601, five years before the Dutch yacht Duyphen, or Dove,—the earliest vessel whose name has been handed down,—sighted, about March, 1606, what is believed to have been the coast near Cape York, Mr. Major, in a learned paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in 1872, indicated the probability that the first discovery was made 'in or before the year 1531.' The dates of two of the six maps from which Mr. Major derives his information are 1531 and 1542. The latter clearly indicates Australia, which is called Jave la Grande. New Zealand is also marked."

F. P. Labilliere, Early History of the Colony of Victoria, chapter 1.

In 1606, De Quiros, a Spanish navigator, sailing from Peru, across the Pacific, reached a shore which stretched so far that he took it to be a continent. "He called the place 'Tierra Australis de Espiritu Santo,' that is 'Southern Land of the Holy Spirit.' It is now known that this was not really a continent, but merely one of the New Hebrides Islands, and more than a thousand miles away from the mainland. … In after years, the name he had invented was divided into two parts; the island he had really discovered being called Espiritu Santo, while the continent he thought he had discovered was called Terra Australis. This last name was shortened by another discoverer—Flinders—to the present term Australia." After the visit to the Australian coast of the small Dutch ship, the "Dove," it was touched, during the next twenty years, by a number of vessels of the same nationality. "In 1622 a Dutch ship, the 'Leeuwin,' or 'Lioness,' sailed along the southern coast, and its name was given to the southwest cape of Australia. … In 1628 General Carpenter sailed completely round the large Gulf to the north, which has taken its name from this circumstance. Thus, by degrees, all the northern and western, together with part of the southern shores, came to be roughly explored, and the Dutch even had some idea of colonizing this continent. … During the next fourteen years we hear no more of voyages to Australia; but in 1642 Antony Van Diemen, the Governor of the Dutch possessions in the East Indies, sent out his friend Abel Jansen Tasman, with two ships, to make discoveries in the South Seas." Tasman discovered the island which he called Van Diemen's Land, but which has since been named in his own honor—Tasmania. "This he did not know to be an island; he drew it on his maps as if it were a peninsula belonging to the mainland of Australia." In 1699, the famous buccaneer, William Dampier, was given the command of a vessel sent out to the southern seas, and he explored about 900 miles of the northwestern coast of Australia; but the description which he gave of the country did not encourage the adventurous to seek fortune in it. "We hear of no further explorations in this part of the world until nearly a century after; and, even then, no one thought of sending out ships specially for the purpose. But in the year 1770 a series of important discoveries were indirectly brought about. The Royal Society of London, calculating that the planet Venus would cross the disc of the sun in 1769, persuaded the English Government to send out an expedition to the Pacific Ocean for the purpose of making observations on this event which would enable astronomers to calculate the distance of the earth from the sun. A small vessel, the 'Endeavour,' was chosen; astronomers with their instruments embarked, and the whole placed under the charge of" the renowned sailor, Captain James Cook. The astronomical purposes of the expedition were satisfactorily accomplished at Otaheite, and Captain Cook then proceeded to an exploration of the shores of New Zealand and Australia. {191} Having entered a fine bay on the south-eastern coast of Australia, "he examined the country for a few miles inland, and two of his scientific friends—Sir Joseph Banks and Dr. Solander—made splendid collections of botanical specimens. From this circumstance the place was called Botany Bay, and its two head-lands received the names of Cape Banks and Cape Solander. It was here that Captain Cook … took possession of the country on behalf of His Britannic Majesty, giving it the name 'New South Wales,' on account of the resemblance of its coasts to the southern shores of Wales. Shortly after they had set sail from Botany Bay they observed a small opening in the land, but Cook did not stay to examine it, merely marking it on his chart as Port Jackson, in honour of his friend Sir George Jackson. … The reports brought home by Captain Cook completely changed the beliefs current in those days with regard to Australia. … It so happened that, shortly after Cook's return, the English nation had to deal with a great difficulty in regard to its criminal population. In 1776 the United States declared their independence, and the English then found they could no longer send their convicts over to Virginia, as they had formerly done. In a short time the gaols of England were crowded with felons. It became necessary to select a new place of transportation; and, just as this difficulty arose, Captain Cook's voyages called attention to a land in every way suited for such a purpose, both by reason of its fertility and of its great distance. Viscount Sydney, therefore, determined to send out a party to Botany Bay, in order to found a convict settlement there; and in May, 1787, a fleet was ready to sail." After a voyage of eight months the fleet arrived at Botany Bay, in January, 1788. The waters of the Bay were found to be too shallow for a proper harbour, and Captain Phillip, the appointed Governor of the settlement, set out, with three boats, to search for something better. "As he passed along the coast he turned to examine the opening which Captain Cook had called Port Jackson, and soon found himself in a winding channel of water, with great cliffs frowning overhead. All at once a magnificent prospect opened on his eyes. A harbour, which is, perhaps, the most beautiful and perfect in the world, stretched before him far to the west, till it was lost on the distant horizon. It seemed a vast maze of winding waters, dotted here and there with lovely islets. … Captain Phillip selected, as the place most suitable to the settlement, a small inlet, which, in honour of the Minister of State, he called Sydney Cove. It was so deep as to allow vessels to approach within a yard or two of the shore." Great difficulties and sufferings attended the founding of the penal settlement, and many died of actual starvation as well as of disease; but in twelve years the population had risen to between 6,000 and 7,000 persons. Meantime a branch colony had been established on Norfolk Island. In 1702 Governor Phillip, broken in health, had resigned, and in 1795 he had been succeeded by Governor Hunter. "When Governor Hunter arrived, in 1795, he brought with him, on board his ship, the 'Reliance,' It young surgeon, George Bass, and a midshipman called Matthew Flinders. They were young men of the most admirable character. … Within a month after their arrival they purchased a small boat about eight feet in length, which they christened the 'Tom Thumb.' Its crew consisted of themselves and a boy to assist." In this small craft they began a survey of the coast, usefully charting many miles of it. Soon afterwards, George Bass, in an open whale-boat, pursued his explorations southwards, to the region now called Victoria, and through the straits which bear his name, thus discovering the fact that Van Diemen's Land, or Tasmania, is an island, not a peninsula. In 1798, Bass and Flinders, again associated and furnished with a small sloop, sailed round and surveyed the entire coast of Van Diemen's Land. Bass now went to South America and there disappeared. Flinders was commissioned by the British Government in 1800 to make an extensive survey of the Australian coasts, and did so. Returning to England with his maps, he was taken prisoner on the way by the French and held in captivity for six years, while the fruits of his labor were stolen. He died a few years after being released.

A. and G. Sutherland, History of Australia, chapter 1-3.

ALSO IN: G. W. Rusden, History of Australia, chapter 1-3 (volume 1).

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840. Beginning of the Prosperity of New South Wales. Introduction of sheep-farming. The founding of Victoria and South Australia.

"For twenty years and more no one at home gave a thought to New South Wales, or 'Botany Bay,' as it was still erroneously called, unless in vague horror and compassion for the poor creatures who lived there in exile and starvation. The only civilizing element in the place was the presence of a devoted clergyman named Johnson, who had voluntarily accompanied the first batch of convicts. … Colonel Lachlan Macquarie entered on the office of governor in 1810, and ruled the settlement for twelve years. His administration was the first turning point in its history. … Macquarie saw that the best and cheapest way of ruling the convicts was to make them freemen as soon as possible. Before his time, the governors had looked on the convicts as slaves, to be worked for the profit of the government and of the free settlers. Macquarie did all he could to elevate the class of emancipists, and to encourage the convicts to persevere in sober industry in the hope of one day acquiring a respectable position. He began to discontinue the government farms, and to employ the convicts in road-making so as to extend the colony in all directions. When he came to Sydney, the country more than a day's ride from the town was quite unknown. The growth of the settlement was stopped on the west by a range called the Blue Mountains, which before his time no one had succeeded in crossing. But in 1813, there came a drought upon the colony: the cattle, on which everything depended, were unable to find food. Macquarie surmised that there must be plenty of pasture on the plains above the Blue Mountains: he sent an exploring party, telling them that a pass must be discovered. In a few months, not only was this task accomplished, and the vast and fertile pastures of Bathurst reached, but a road 130 miles long was made, connecting them with Sydney. The Lachlan and Macquarie rivers were traced out to the west of the Blue Mountains. {192} Besides this, coal was found at the mouth of the Hunter river, and the settlement at Newcastle formed. … When it became known that the penal settlement was gradually becoming a free colony, and that Sydney and its population were rapidly changing their character, English and Scotch people soon bethought them of emigrating to the new country. Macquarie returned home in 1822, leaving New South Wales four times as populous, and twenty times as large as when he went out, and many years in advance of what it might have been under a less able and energetic governor. The discovery of the fine pastures beyond the Blue Mountains settled the destiny of the colony. The settlers came up thither with their flocks long before Macquarie's road was finished; and it turned out that the downs of Australia were the best sheep-walks in the world. The sheep thrives better there, and produces finer and more abundant wool, than anywhere else. John Macarthur, a lieutenant in the New South Wales corps, had spent several years in studying the effect of the Australian climate upon the sheep; and he rightly surmised that the staple of the colony would be its fine wool. In 1803, he went to England and procured some pure Spanish merino sheep from the flock of George III. … The Privy Council listened to his wool projects, and he received a large grant of land. Macarthur had found out the true way to Australian prosperity. When the great upland pastures were discovered, the merino breed was well established in the colony; and the sheep-owners, without waiting for grants, spread with their flocks over immense tracts of country. This was the beginning of what is called squatting. The squatters afterwards paid a quit-rent to the government and thus got their runs, as they called the great districts where they pastured their flocks, to a certain extent secured to them. … Hundreds upon hundreds of square miles of the great Australian downs were now explored and stocked with sheep for the English wool-market. … It was in the time of Macquarie's successor, Sir Thomas Brisbane, that the prospects of New South Wales became generally known in England. Free emigrants, each bringing more or less capital with him, now poured in; and the demand for labour became enormous. At first the penal settlements were renewed as depots for the supply of labour, and it was even proposed that the convicts should be sold by auction on their arrival; but in the end the influx of free labourers entirely altered the question. In Brisbane's time, and that of his successor, Sir Ralph Darling, wages fell and work became scarce in England; and English working men now turned their attention to Australia. Hitherto the people had been either convicts or free settlers of more or less wealth, and between these classes there was great bitterness of feeling, each, naturally enough, thinking that the colony existed for their own exclusive benefit. The free labourers who now poured in greatly contributed in course of time to fusing the population into one. In Brisbane's time, trial by jury and a free press were introduced. The finest pastures in Australia, the Darling Downs near Moreton Bay, were discovered and settled [1825]. The rivers which pour into Moreton Bay were explored: one of them was named the Brisbane, and a few miles from its mouth the town of the same name was founded. Brisbane is now the capital of the colony of Queensland: and other explorations in his time led to the foundation of a second independent colony. The Macquarie was traced beyond the marshes, in which it was supposed to lose itself, and named the Darling: and the Murray river was discovered [1829]. The tracing out of the Murray river by the adventurous traveller Sturt, led to a colony on the site which he named South Australia. In Darling's time, the Swan River Colony, now called Western Australia, was commenced. Darling … was the first to sell the land at a small fixed price, on the system adopted in America. … Darling returned to England in 1831; and the six-years administration of his successor, Sir Richard Bourke, marks a fresh turning-point in Australian history. In his time the colony threw off two great offshoots. Port Phillip, on which now stands the great city of Melbourne, had been discovered in 1802, and in the next year the government sent hither a convict colony. This did not prosper, and this fine site was neglected for thirty years. When the sudden rise of New South Wales began, the squatters began to settle to the west and north of Port Phillip; and the government at once sent an exploring party, who reported most favourably of the country around. In 1836, Governor Bourke founded a settlement in this new land, which had been called, from its rich promise, Australia Felix: and under his directions the site of a capital was laid out, to be called Melbourne, in honour of the English Prime Minister. This was in 1837, so that the beginning of the colony corresponds nearly with that of Queen Victoria's reign; a circumstance which afterwards led to its being named Victoria. Further west still, a second new colony arose about this time on the site discovered by Sturt in 1829. This was called South Australia, and the first governor arrived there at the end of the year 1836. The intended capital was named Adelaide, in honour of the Queen of William IV. Both the new colonies were commenced on a new system, called from its inventor the Wakefield system, but the founders of South Australia were able to carry it out most effectually, because they were quite independent of the experience and the prejudices of the Sydney government. Mr. Wakefield was an ingenious man and a clever writer. … His notion was that the new colonies ought to be made 'fairly to represent English society.' His plan was to arrest the strong democratic tendencies of the new community, and to reproduce in Australia the strong distinction of classes which was found in England. He wanted the land sold as dear as land-owners: and the produce of the land was to be applied in tempting labourers to emigrate with the prospect of better wages than they got at home. A Company was easily formed to carry out these ideas in South Australia. … Like the settlement of Carolina as framed by Locke and Somers, it was really a plan for getting the advantages of the colony into the hands of the non-labouring classes: and by the natural laws of political economy, it failed everywhere. Adelaide became the scene of an Australian 'bubble.' The land-jobbers and money-lenders made fortunes: but the people who emigrated, mostly belonging to the middle and upper classes, found the scheme to be a delusion. Land rapidly rose in value, and as rapidly sank; and lots for which the emigrants had paid high prices became almost worthless. The labourers emigrated elsewhere, and so did those of the capitalists who had anything left. … The depression of South Australia, however, was but temporary. It contains the best corn land in the whole island: and hence it of course soon became the chief source of the food supply of the neighbouring colonies, besides exporting large quantities of corn to England. It contains rich mines of copper, and produces large quantities of wool."

E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 12.

ALSO IN: G. W. Rusden, History of Australia, volume 1-2.

{193}

AUSTRALIA: A.D. 1839-1855. Progress of the Port Phillip District. Its Separation from New South Wales and erection into the colony of Victoria. Discovery of Gold. Constitutional organization of the colony.

"In 1839 the population of Port Phillip amounted to nearly 6,000, and was being rapidly augmented from without. The sheep in the district exceeded half a million, and of cattle and horses the numbers were in proportion equally large. The place was daily growing in importance. The Home Government therefore decided to send an officer, with the title of Superintendent, to take charge of the district, but to act under the Governor of New South Wales. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Esq., was appointed to this office. … He arrived at Melbourne on the 30th September, 1839. Soon after this all classes of the new community appear to have become affected by a mania for speculation. … As is always the case when speculation takes the place of steady industry, the necessaries of life became fabulously dear. Of money there was but little, in consideration of the amount of business done, and large transactions were effected by means of paper and credit. From highest to lowest, all lived extravagantly. … Such a state of things could not last forever. In 1842, by which time the population had increased to 24,000, the crash came. … From this depression the colony slowly recovered, and a sounder business system took the place of the speculative one. … All this time, however, the colony was a dependency of New South Wales, and a strong feeling had gained ground that it suffered in consequence. … A cry was raised for separation. The demand was, as a matter of course, resisted by New South Wales, but as the agitation was carried on with increased activity, it was at last yielded to by the Home authorities. The vessel bearing the intelligence arrived on the 11th November, 1850. The news soon spread, and great was the satisfaction of the colonists. Rejoicings were kept up in Melbourne for five consecutive days. … Before, however, the separation could be legally accomplished, it was necessary that an Act should be passed in New South Wales to settle details. … The requisite forms were at length given effect to, and, on the 1st July, 1851, a day which has ever since been scrupulously observed as a public holiday, it was proclaimed that the Port Phillip district of New South Wales had been erected into a separate colony to be called Victoria, after the name of Her Most Gracious Majesty. At the same time the Superintendent, Mr. C. J. La Trobe, was raised to the rank of Lieutenant-Governor. At the commencement of the year of separation the population of Port Phillip numbered 76,000, the sheep 6,000,000, the cattle 380,000. … In a little more than a month after the establishment of Victoria as an independent colony, it became generally known that rich deposits of gold existed within its borders. … The discovery of gold … in New South Wales, by Hargreaves, in February, 1851, caused numbers to emigrate to that colony. This being considered detrimental to the interests of Victoria, a public meeting was held in Melbourne on the 9th of June, at which a 'gold-discovery committee' was appointed, which was authorized to offer rewards to any that should discover gold in remunerative quantities within the colony. The colonists were already on the alert. At the time this meeting was held, several parties were out searching for, and some had already found gold. The precious metal was first discovered at Clunes, then in the Yarra ranges at Anderson's Creek, soon after at Buninyong and Ballarat, shortly afterwards at Mount Alexander, and eventually at Bendigo. The deposits were found to be richer and to extend over a wider area than any which had been discovered in New South Wales. Their fame soon spread to the adjacent colonies, and thousands hastened to the spot. … When the news reached home, crowds of emigrants from the United Kingdom hurried to our shores. Inhabitants of other European countries quickly joined in the rush. Americans from the Atlantic States were not long in following. Stalwart Californians left their own gold-yielding rocks and placers to try their fortunes at the Southern Eldorado. Last of all, swarms of Chinese arrived, eager to unite in the general scramble for wealth. … The important position which the Australian colonies had obtained in consequence of the discovery of gold, and the influx of population consequent thereon, was the occasion of the Imperial Government determining in the latter end of 1852 that each colony should be invited to frame such a Constitution for its government as its representatives might deem best suited to its own peculiar circumstances. The Constitution framed in Victoria, and afterwards approved by the British Parliament, was avowedly based upon that of the United Kingdom. It provided for the establishment of two Houses of Legislature, with power to make laws, subject to the assent of the Crown as represented generally by the Governor of the colony; the Legislative Council, or Upper House, to consist of 30, and the Legislative Assembly, or Lower House, to consist of 60 members. Members of both Houses to be elective and to possess property qualifications. Electors of both Houses to possess either property or professional qualifications [the property qualification of members and electors of the Lower House has since been abolished]. … The Upper House not to be dissolved, but five members to retire every two years, and to be eligible for re-election. The Lower House to be dissolved every five years [since reduced to three], or oftener, at the discretion of the Governor. Certain officers of the Government, four at least of whom should have seats in Parliament, to be deemed 'Responsible Ministers.' … This Constitution was proclaimed in Victoria on the 23d November, 1855."

H. H. Hayter, Notes on the Colony of Victoria, chapter 1.

ALSO IN: F. P. Labilliere, Early History of the Colony of Victoria, volume 2.

W. Westgarth, First Twenty Years of the Colony of Victoria.

{194}

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859. Separation of the Moreton Bay District from New South Wales. Its erection into the colony of Queensland.

"Until December, 1859, the north-west portion of the Fifth Continent was known as the Moreton Bay district, and belonged to the colony of New South Wales; but at that date it had grown so large that it was erected into a separate and independent colony, under the name of Queensland. It lies between latitude 10° 43' South and 29° South, and longitude 138° and 153° East, bounded on the north by Torres Straits; on the north-east by the Coral Sea; on the east by the South Pacific; on the south by New South Wales and South Australia; on the west by South Australia and the Northern Territory; and on the north-west by the Gulf of Carpentaria. It covers an area … twenty times as large as Ireland, twenty-three times as large as Scotland, and eleven times the extent of England. … Numerous good harbours are found, many of which form the outlets of navigable rivers. The principal of these [is] Moreton Bay, at the head of which stands Brisbane, the capital of the colony. … The mineral wealth of Queensland is very great, and every year sees it more fully developed. … Until the year 1867, when the Gympie field was discovered, gold mining as an industry was hardly known."

C. H. Eden, The Fifth Continent, chapter 10.

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1885-1892. Proposed Federation of the Colonies.

"It has been a common saying in Australia that our fellow countrymen in that part of the world did not recognise the term 'Australian;' each recognised only his own colony and the empire. But the advocates of combination for certain common purposes achieved a great step forward in the formation of a 'Federal Council' in 1885. It was to be only a 'Council,' its decisions having no force over any colony unless accepted afterwards by the colonial Legislature. Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, and West Australia joined, New South Wales, South Australia, and New Zealand standing out, and, so constituted, it met twice. The results of the deliberations were not unsatisfactory, and the opinion that the move was in the right direction rapidly grew. In February of 1890 a Federation Conference, not private but representative of the different Governments, was called at Melbourne. It adopted an address to the Queen declaring the opinion of the conference to be that the best interests of the Australian colonies require the early formation of a union under the Crown into one Government, both legislative and executive. Events proceed quickly in Colonial History. In the course of 1890 the hesitation of New South Wales was finally overcome; powerful factors being the weakening of the Free Trade position at the election of 1890, the report of General Edwards on the Defences, and the difficulties about Chinese immigration. A Convention accordingly assembled at Sydney in March, 1891, which agreed upon a Constitution to be recommended to the several Colonies."

A. Caldecott, English Colonization and Empire, chapter 7, section 2.

"On Monday, March 2nd, 1891, the National Australasian Convention met at the Parliament House, Sydney, New South Wales, and was attended by seven representatives from each Colony, except New Zealand, which only sent three. Sir Henry Parkes (New South Wales) was elected President of the Convention, and Sir Samuel Griffith (Queensland), Vice-President. A series of resolutions, moved by Sir Henry Parkes, occupied the attention of the Convention for several days. These resolutions set forth the principles upon which the Federal Government should be established, which were to the effect that the powers and privileges of existing Colonies should be kept intact, except in cases where surrender would be necessary in order to form a Federal Government; that intercolonial trade and intercourse should be free; that power to impose Customs duties should rest with the Federal Government and Parliament; and that the naval and military defence of Australia should be entrusted to the Federal Forces under one command. The resolutions then went on to approve of a Federal Constitution which should establish a Federal Parliament to consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives; that a Judiciary, to consist of a Federal Supreme Court, to be a High Court of Appeal for Australia, should be established; and that a Federal Executive, consisting of a Governor-General, with responsible advisers, should be constituted. These resolutions were discussed at great length, and eventually were adopted. The resolutions were then referred to three Committees chosen from the delegates, one to consider Constitutional Machinery and the distribution of powers and functions; one to deal with matters relating to Finance, Taxation, and Trade Regulations; and the other to consider the question of the establishment of a Federal Judiciary. A draft Bill, to constitute the 'Commonwealth of Australia,' was brought up by the first mentioned of these Committees, and after full consideration was adopted by the Convention, and it was agreed that the Bill should be presented to each of the Australian Parliaments for approval and adoption. On Thursday, April 9th. the Convention closed its proceedings. The Bill to provide for the Federation of the Australasian colonies entitled 'A Bill to constitute a Commonwealth of Australia,' which was drafted by the National Australasian Convention, has been introduced into the Parliaments of most of the colonies of the group, and is still (October, 1892), under consideration. In Victoria it has passed the Lower House with some amendments."

Statesman's Year-book, 1893, page 308.

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890. New South Wales and Victoria.

"New South Wales bears to Victoria a certain statistical resemblance. The two colonies have [1890] about the same population, and, roughly speaking, about the same revenues, expenditure, debt and trade. In each, a great capital collects in one neighbourhood more than a third of the total population. … But … considerable differences lie behind and are likely to develop in the future. New South Wales, in the opinion of her enemies, is less enterprising than Victoria, and has less of the go-ahead spirit which distinguishes the Melbourne people. On the other hand she possesses a larger territory, abundant supplies of coal, and will have probably, in consequence, a greater future. Although New South Wales is three and a half times as large as Victoria, and has the area of the German Empire and Italy combined, she is of course much smaller than the three other but as yet less important colonies of the Australian continent [namely Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia]. {195} As the country was in a large degree settled by assisted emigrants, of whom something like half altogether have been Irish, while the English section was largely composed of Chartists, … the legislation of New South Wales has naturally shown signs of its origin. Manhood suffrage was carried in 1858; the abolition of primogeniture in 1862; safe and easy transfer of land through the machinery of the Torrens Act in the same year; and also the abolition of state aid to religion. A public system of education was introduced, with other measures of democratic legislation. … Public education, which in Victoria is free, is still paid for by fees in New South Wales, though children going to or returning from school are allowed to travel free by railway. In general it may be said that New South Wales legislation in recent times has not been so bold as the legislation of Victoria. … The land of New South Wales has to a large extent come into the hands of wealthy persons who are becoming a territorial aristocracy. This has been the effect firstly of grants and of squatting legislation, then of the perversion of the Act of 1861 [for 'Free Selection before Survey'] to the use of those against whom it had been aimed, and finally of natural causes—soil, climate and the lack of water. … The traces of the convict element in New South Wales have become very slight in the national character. The prevailing cheerfulness, running into fickleness and frivolity, with a great deal more vivacity than exists in England, does not suggest in the least the intermixture of convict blood. It is a natural creation of the climate, and of the full and varied life led by colonists in a young country. … A population of an excellent type has swallowed up not only the convict element, but also the unstable and thriftless element shipped by friends in Britain to Sydney or to Melbourne. The ne'er-do-weels were either somewhat above the average in brains, as was often the case with those who recovered themselves and started life afresh, or people who drank themselves to death and disappeared and left no descendants. The convicts were also of various classes; some of them were men in whom crime was the outcome of restless energy, as, for instance, in many of those transported for treason and for manslaughter; while some were people of average morality ruined through companions, wives, or sudden temptation, and some persons of an essentially depraved and criminal life. The better classes of convicts, in a new country, away from their old companions and old temptations, turned over a new leaf, and their abilities and their strong vitality, which in some cases had wrought their ruin in the old world, found healthful scope in subduing to man a new one. Crime in their cases was an accident, and would not be transmitted to the children they left behind them. On the other hand, the genuine criminals, and also the drunken ne'er-do-weels, left no children. Drink and vice among the 'assigned servants' class of convicts, and an absence of all facilities for marriage, worked them off the face of the earth, and those who had not been killed before the gold discovery generally drank themselves to death upon the diggings."

Sir C. W. Dilke, Problems of Greater Britain, part 2, chapter 2.

AUSTRASIA AND NEUSTRIA, OR NEUSTRASIA.

"It is conjectured by Luden, with great probability, that the Ripuarians were originally called the 'Eastern' people to distinguish them from the Salian Franks who lived to the West. But when the old home of the conquerors on the right bank of the Rhine was united with their new settlements in Gaul, the latter, as it would seem, were called Neustria or Neustrasia (New Lands); while the term Austrasia came to denote the original seats of the Franks, on what we now call the German bank of the Rhine. The most important difference between them (a difference so great as to lead to their permanent separation into the kingdoms of France and Germany by the treaty of Verdun) was this: that in Neustria the Frankish element was quickly absorbed by the mass of Gallo-Romanism by which it was surrounded; while in Austrasia, which included the ancient seats of the Frankish conquerors, the German element was wholly predominant. The import of the word Austrasia (Austria, Austrifrancia) is very fluctuating. In its widest sense it was used to denote all the countries incorporated into the Frankish Empire, or even held in subjection to it, in which the German language and population prevailed; in this acceptation it included therefore the territory of the Alemanni, Bavarians, Thuringians, and even that of the Saxons and Frises. In its more common and proper sense it meant that part of the territory of the Franks themselves which was not included in Neustria. It was subdivided into Upper Austrasia on the Moselle, and Lower Austrasia on the Rhine and Meuse. Neustria (or, in the fulness of the monkish Latinity, Neustrasia) was bounded on the north by the ocean, on the south by the Loire, and on the southwest [southeast?] towards Burgundy by a line which, beginning below Gien on the Loire, ran through the rivers Loing and Yonne, not far from their sources, and passing north of Auxerre and south of Troyes, joined the river Aube above Arcis."

W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3.

"The northeastern part of Gaul, along the Rhine, together with a slice of ancient Germany, was already distinguished, as we have seen, by the name of the Eastern Kingdom, or Oster-rike, Latinized into Austrasia. It embraced the region first occupied by the Ripumarian Franks, and where they still lived the most compactly and in the greatest number. … This was, in the estimation of the Franks, the kingdom by eminence, while the rest of the north of Gaul was simply not it—'ne-oster-rike,' or Neustria. A line drawn from the mouth of the Scheldt to Cambrai, and thence across the Marne at Chateau-Thierry to the Aube of Bar-sur-Aube, would have separated the one from the other, Neustria comprising all the northwest of Gaul, between the Loire and the ocean, with the exception of Brittany. This had been the first possession of the Salian Franks in Gaul. … To such an extent had they been absorbed and influenced by the Roman elements of the population, that the Austrasians scarcely considered them Franks, while they, in their turn, regarded the Austrasians as the merest untutored barbarians."

P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul, book 3, chapter 13, with note.

ALSO IN: E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe, chapter 5, section 5.

See, also, FRANKS (MEROVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 511-752.

[Image: HABSBURG POSSESSIONS]

[Image: HABSBURG POSSESSIONS]

[Image: AUSTRIA-HUNGARY]

{196}

AUSTRIA: The Name.

"The name of Austria, Oesterreich—Ostrich as our forefathers wrote it—-is, naturally enough, a common name for the eastern part of any kingdom. The Frankish kingdom of the Merwings had its Austria; the Italian kingdom of the Lombards had its Austria also. We are half inclined to wonder that the name was never given in our own island either to Essex or to East-Anglia. But, while the other Austrias have passed away, the Oesterreich, the Austria, the Eastern mark, of the German kingdom, its defence against the Magyar invader, has lived on to our own times. It has not only lived on, but it has become one of the chief European powers. And it has become so by a process to which it would be hard to find a parallel."

E. A. Freeman, The Historical Geography of Europe, volume 1, chapter 8, page 305.

AUSTRIA: The birthplace.

"On the disputed frontier, in the zone of perpetual conflict, were formed and developed the two states which, in turn, were to dominate over Germany, namely, Austria and Prussia. Both were born in the midst of the enemy. The cradle of Austria was the Eastern march, established by Charlemagne on the Danube, beyond Bavaria, at the very gate through which have passed so many invaders from the Orient. … The cradle of Prussia was the march of Brandenburg, between the Elbe and the Oder, in the region of the exterminated Slavs."

E. Lavisse, General View of the Political History of Europe, chapter 3, section 13.

AUSTRIA: The Singularity of Austrian history. A power which is not a national power.

"It is by no means an easy task to tell the story of the various lands which have at different times come under the dominion of Austrian princes, the story of each land by itself, and the story of them all in relation to the common power. A continuous narrative is impossible. … Much mischief has been done by one small fashion of modern speech. It has within my memory become usual to personify nations and powers on the smallest occasions in a way which was formerly done only in language more or less solemn, rhetorical or poetical. We now talk every moment of England, France, Germany, Russia, Italy, as if they were persons. And as long as it is only England, France, Germany, Russia, or Italy of which we talk in this way, no practical harm is done; the thing is a mere question of style. For those are all national powers. … But when we go on to talk in this way of 'Austria,' of 'Turkey,' direct harm is done; thought is confused, and facts are misrepresented. … I have seen the words 'Austrian national honour;' I have come across people who believed that 'Austria' was one land inhabited by 'Austrians,' and that 'Austrians' spoke the 'Austrian' language. All such phrases are misapplied. It is to be presumed that in all of them 'Austria' means something more than the true Austria, the archduchy; what is commonly meant by them is the whole dominions of the sovereign of Austria. People fancy that the inhabitants of those dominions have a common being, a common interest, like that of the people of England, France, or Italy. … There is no Austrian language, no Austrian nation; therefore there can be no such thing as 'Austrian national honour.' Nor can there be an 'Austrian policy' in the same sense in which there is an English or a French policy, that is, a policy in which the English or French government carries out the will of the English or French nation. … Such phrases as 'Austrian interests,' 'Austrian policy,' and the like, do not mean the interests or the policy of any land or nation at all. They simply mean the interests and policy of a particular ruling family, which may often be the same as the interests and wishes of particular parts of their dominions, but which can never represent any common interest or common wish on the part of the whole. … We must ever remember that the dominions of the House of Austria are simply a collection of kingdoms, duchies, etc., brought together by various accidental causes, but which have nothing really in common, no common speech, no common feeling, no common interest. In one case only, that of the Magyars in Hungary, does the House of Austria rule over a whole nation; the other kingdoms, duchies, etc., are only parts of nations, having no tie to one another, but having the closest ties to other parts of their several nations which lie close to them, but which are under other governments. The only bond among them all is that a series of marriages, wars, treaties, and so forth, have given them a common sovereign. The same person is king of Hungary, Archduke of Austria, Count of Tyrol, Lord of Trieste, and a hundred other things. That is all. … The growth and the abiding dominion of the House of Austria is one of the most remarkable phænomena in European history. Powers of the same kind have arisen twice before; but in both cases they were very short-lived, while the power of the House of Austria has lasted for several centuries. The power of the House of Anjou in the twelfth century, the power of the House of Burgundy in the fifteenth century, were powers of exactly the same kind. They too were collections of scraps, with no natural connexion, brought together by the accidents of warfare, marriage, of diplomacy. Now why is it that both these powers broke in pieces almost at once, after the reigns of two princes in each case, while the power of the House of Austria has lasted so long? Two causes suggest themselves. One is the long connexion between the House of Austria and the Roman Empire and kingdom of Germany. So many Austrian princes were elected Emperors as to make the Austrian House seem something great and imperial in itself. I believe that this cause has done a good deal towards the result; but I believe that another cause has done yet more. This is that, though the Austrian power is not a national power, there is, as has been already noticed, a nation within it. While it contains only scraps of other nations, it contains the whole of the Magyar nation. It thus gets something of the strength of a national power. … The kingdom of Hungary is an ancient kingdom, with known boundaries which have changed singularly little for several centuries; and its connexion with the archduchy of Austria and the kingdom of Bohemia is now of long standing. Anything beyond this is modern and shifting. The so-called 'empire of Austria' dates only from the year 1804. This is one of the simplest matters in the world, but one which is constantly forgotten. … A smaller point on which confusion also prevails is this. {197} All the members of the House of Austria are commonly spoken of as archdukes and archduchesses. I feel sure that many people, if asked the meaning of the word archduke, would say that it was the title of the children of the 'Emperor of Austria,' as grand-duke is used in Russia, and prince in most countries. In truth, archduke is the title of the sovereign of Austria. He has not given it up; for he calls himself Archduke of Austria still, though he calls himself 'Emperor of Austria' as well. But by German custom, the children of a duke or count are all called dukes and counts for ever and ever. In this way the Prince of Wales is called 'Duke of Saxony,' and in the same way all the children of an Archduke of Austria are archdukes and archduchesses. Formally and historically then, the taking of an hereditary imperial title by the Archduke of Austria in 1804, and the keeping of it after the prince who took it had ceased in 1806 to be King of Germany and Roman Emperor-elect, was a sheer and shameless imposture. But it is an imposture which has thoroughly well served its ends."

E. A. Freeman, Preface to Leger's History of Austria-Hungary.

"Medieval History is a history of rights and wrongs; modern History as contrasted with medieval divides itself into two portions; the first a history of powers, forces, and dynasties; the second, a history in which ideas take the place of both rights and forces. … Austria may be regarded as representing the more ancient form of right. … The middle ages proper, the centuries from the year 1000 to the year 1500, from the Emperor Henry II. to the Emperor Maximilian, were ages of legal growth, ages in which the idea of right, as embodied in law, was the leading idea of statesmen, and the idea of rights justified or justifiable by the letter of law, was a profound influence with politicians. … The house of Austria … lays thus the foundation of that empire which is to be one of the great forces of the next age; not by fraud, not by violence, but here by a politic marriage, here by a well advocated inheritance, here by a claim on an imperial fief forfeited or escheated: honestly where the letter of the law is in her favour, by chicanery it may be here and there, but that a chicanery that wears a specious garb of right. The imperial idea was but a small influence compared with the super-structure of right, inheritance, and suzerainty, that legal instincts and a general acquiescence in legal forms had raised upon it."

William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval and Modern History, pages 209-215.

[Image]

ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

NOTE: The shaded parts denote the distribution of the Germans.

AUSTRIA: The Races.

"The ethnical elements of the population are as follows (1890 for Austria and 1880 for Hungary) on the basis of language; Austria (1890): German 8,461,580; Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 5,472,871; Polish 3,719,232; Ruthenian 3,105,221; Slovene 1,176,672; Servian and Croatian 644,926; Italian and Latin 675,305; Roumanian 209,110; Magyar 8,139. Hungary (1880): German 1,972,115; Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 1,892,806; Ruthenian 360,051; Slovene 86,401; Servian and Croatian 2,359,708; Roumanian 2,423,387; Magyar 6,478,711; Gipsies 82,256; Others 83,940,"

Statesman's Year-Book, 1893; edited by J. S, Keltie.

—————AUSTRIA: End—————

A Logical Outline of Austrian History

In Which The Dominant Conditions And Influences Are Distinguished By Colors.

[Red] Physical or material. [Blue] Ethnological. [Green] Social and political. [Brown] Intellectual, moral and religious. [Black] Foreign.

The history of Austria, so far as it has importance, is unique in being the history of a Family and not the history of a State,— the history of a Dynastic and not of a National Power. Territorially, the name was attached, until 1806, to an inconsiderable arch-duchy, on the Danube, in that corner of Teutonic Europe where the Germans of the Middle Ages fought back the Turanian races and the Slaves. Dynastically, it became connected, in the 13th century, with a House, then insignificant, in Alsace, and to the future remarkable fortunes of that House the territory so named contributed little more than a strong central position and a capital town.

Rodolph, Count of Hapsburg, with whom the importance of Austrian history begins, was elected Emperor in 1272, for the reason that his possessions were small and the resoluteness of his character was unknown. He disappointed the Electors by increasing the weight and reviving the power of the Imperial office, which they had not at all desired, and he used its power vigorously for the benefit of himself and his own. The King of Bohemia resisted him and was defeated and slain; and a part of the dominions which the Bohemian king had acquired, including Austria (then a duchy), Carniola and Styria, was appropriated by Rodolph, for his sons. The House of Hapsburg thus became the House of Austria, and its history is what bears the name of Austrian history from that time until 1806. The Hapsburg family has never produced men of the higher intellectual powers, or the higher qualities of any kind; but a remarkable vitality has been proved in it, and a politic self-seeking capability, which has never, perhaps, persisted through so many generations in any other line. It owes to these qualities the acquisition, again and again, of the elective Imperial crown, until that crown settled, at last, upon the heirs of the House, in practically hereditary succession, despite the wish of the princes of Germany to keep it shifting among the weaker members of their order, and despite the rivalry of greater houses with ambitions like its own. The prestige of the splendid Imperial title, and the influence derived from the theoretical functions of the Emperor—small as the actual powers that he held might be—were instruments of policy which the Austrian princes knew how to use with enormous effect. Austrian marriages and Austrian diplomacy, often alluded to as examples of luck and craft in political affairs, show, rather, it may be, the consistent calculation and sagacity with which the House of Austria has pursued its aims.

By marriages, by diplomacy, and by pressures brought to bear from the headship of the Empire, the family plucked, one by one, the coronets of Tyrol and Carinthia (1363), Franche-Comté and Flanders, with the Low Countries entire (1477), and the crowns of Spain, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia (1516), Bohemia (including Moravia), and Hungary (1526). Its many diadems were never moulded into one, but have been, from first to last, the carefully distinguished emblems of so many separate sovereignties, united in no way but by homage to a common prince.

The one most fortunate acquisition of the House, which has given most stability to the heterogeneous structure of it power, in the judgement of the ablest among modern historians is the Hungarian crown. Its Burgundian and Spanish marriages, which brought to it the rich Netherlands and the vast realm of Ferdinand and Isabella, brought also a division the Family, and the rooting of s second stem in Spain; and while its grandeur among the dynasties of Europe was augmented, the real gain of the House in its older seat was small. But the Kingdom on Hungary has been a mass of very concrete political power in its hands, and has supplied in some degree the weight of nationality that was otherwise wanting in the dominions of the House.

The mixture of races under the Austrian sovereigns is the most extraordinary in Europe. Their possessions exactly cover that part of the continent in which its earlier and later invaders fought longest and most; where the struggle between them was final, and where they mingled their settlements together. The Slavic peoples are predominant in numbers; the Germans are scarcely more than one-fourth of the whole; and yet, until recent years, the Austrian power figured chiefly as a German power in European politics, and took leadership in Germany itself. This position accrued to it through the persisting, potent influence of the Imperial title which the Archdukes of Austria bore, with mediæval fictions from Rome and from Germany woven together and clinging around it; and through the broken and divided condition of the German land, where petty courts and princelings disputed precedence with one another, and none could lead. When time raised up one strong and purely German kingdom, to rally and encourage a German sentiment of nationality, then Austria—expelled by it from the Teutonic circle—first found her true place in the politics of Europe.

For Germany the relationship was never a fortunate one. Alien interests came constantly between the Emperors and the Empire— the proper subject of their care,—and they were drawn to alien sympathies by their connection with Spain. They imbibed the hateful temper of the Spanish Church, and fought the large majority of their German lieges, on the questions of the Reformation, for a century and a half. Among the combatants of the frightful "Thirty Years War" they were chiefly responsible for the death and ruin spread over the face of Germanic Europe. At no time did Germany find leading or strength in her nominal Emperors, nor in the states making up the hereditary possessions of their House. In the dark days when the sword of Napoleon threatened every neighbor of France, they deserted their station of command. It was the time which the head of the House of Austria chose for abdicating the crown of the Holy Roman Empire—that lingering fiction of history,—and yet assuming to be an Emperor still—the Emperor of an Empire which rested on the small duchy of Austria for its name.

The renunciation was timely; for now, when Germany rose to break the yoke of Napoleon, she found leadership within her own family of states. Then began the transformation in Germanic Europe which extinguished, after half a century, the last remains of the false relations to it of the Austrian House. Prussia opened her eyes to the new conditions of the age; set the schoolmaster at work among her children; made herself an example and a stimulus to all her neighbors. The Family which called itself Austria did otherwise. It was blind, and it preferred blindness. It read lessons in nothing but the Holy Alliance and the Treaty of Vienna. It listened to no teacher but Metternich. It made itself the resurrectionist of a dead Past in all the graveyards of Feudal Europe, and was heard for half a century as the supporter and champion of every hateful thing in government. It had won Lombardy and Venice by its double traffic with Napoleon and with those who cast Napoleon down; and it enraged the whole civilized world by the cold brutality of its oppressions there.

Events in due time brought the two "systems" of domestic polity— the Prussian and the Austrian—to account, and weighed them together. As a consequence, it happens to-day that the House of Austria has neither place nor voice in the political organization of Germany; has no footing in Italy; has no dungeons of tyranny in its dominions; has no disciples of Metternich among its statesmen. Its face and its feet are now turned quite away from the paths of ambition and of policy which it trod so long. It has learned, and is learning, so fast that it may yet be a teacher in the school of liberal politics which it entered so late. It has set Hungary by the side of Austria, treading the one great nation of its subjects no longer under foot. It sees its interests and recognizes its duties in that quarter of Europe to which History and Geography have been pointing from Vienna and Buda-Pesth since the days of Charlemagne. Its mission in Europe is to command the precarious future of the southeastern states, so far as may be, and to guard them against the dangerous Muscovite, until they grow in civilization and strength and are united as one Power. In this mission it is the ally and the colleague of both Germany and Italy, and the three Powers are united by stronger bonds than were possible before each stood free.

[Right Margin]

9th Century. The March.

A. D. 1272. Rodolph of Hapsburg. Emperor.

A. D. 1282. The House in possession.

A. D. 1438. The Imperial Crown.

A. D. 1363-1526. Gathering of crowns and coronets.

The mixture of races.

A. D. 1521-1531. The Reformation.

A. D. 1618-1648. Thirty Years War.

A. D. 1806. End of the Holy Roman Empire.

A. D. 1815-1866. Policy of Metternich. vs. policy of Stein.

A. D. 1859. Loss of Lombardy.

A. D. 1866. Seven Weeks War. Loss of Venice.

A. D. 1867. Austro-Hungarian Empire.

A. D. 1882. The Triple Alliance.

——-End of "A Logical Outline…"——-

{198}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246. The Rise of the Margraviate, and the creation of the Duchy, under the Babenbergs. Changing relations to Bavaria. End of the Babenberg Dynasty.

"Austria, as is well known, is but the Latin form of the German Oesterreich, the kingdom of the east [see above: AUSTRASIA]. This celebrated historical name appears for the first time in 996. in a document signed by the emperor Otto III. ('in regione vulgari nomine Osterrichi'). The land to which it is there applied was created a march after the destruction of the Avar empire [805], and was governed like all the other German marches. Politically it was divided into two margraviates; that of Friuli, including Friuli properly so called, Lower Pannonia to the south of the Drave, Carinthia, Istria, and the interior of Dalmatia—the sea-coast having been ceded to the Eastern emperor;—the eastern margraviate comprising Lower Pannonia to the north of the Drave, Upper Pannonia, and the Ostmark properly so called. The Ostmark included the Traungau to the east of the Enns, which was completely German, and the Grunzvittigau. … The early history of these countries lacks the unity of interest which the fate of a dynasty or a nation gives to those of the Magyar and the Chekh. They form but a portion of the German kingdom, and have no strongly marked life of their own. The march, with its varying frontier, had not even a geographical unity. In 876, it was enlarged by the addition of Bavaria; in 890, it lost Pannonia, which was given to Bracislav, the Croat prince, in return for his help against the Magyars, and in 937, it was destroyed and absorbed by the Magyars, who extended their frontier to the river Enns. After the battle of Lechfeld or Augsburg (955), Germany and Italy being no longer exposed to Hungarian invasions, the march was re-constituted and granted to the margrave Burkhard, the brother-in-law of Henry of Bavaria. Leopold of Babenberg succeeded him (973), and with him begins the dynasty of Babenberg, which ruled the country during the time of the Premyslides [in Bohemia] and the house of Arpad [in Hungary]. The Babenbergs derived their name from the castle of Babenberg, built by Henry, margrave of Nordgau, in honor of his wife, Baba, sister of Henry the Fowler. It reappears in the name of the town of Bamberg, which now forms part of the kingdom of Bavaria. … Though not of right an hereditary office, the margraviate soon became so, and remained in the family of the Babenbergs; the march was so important a part of the empire that no doubt the emperor was glad to make the defence of this exposed district the especial interest of one family. … The marriages of the Babenbergs were fortunate; in 1138 the brother of Leopold [Fourth of that name in the Margraviate] Conrad of Hohenstaufen, Duke of Franconia, was made emperor. It was now that the struggle began between the house of Hohenstaufen and the great house of Welf [or Guelf: See GUELFS AND GHIBELINES] whose representative was Henry the Proud, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria. Henry was defeated in the unequal strife, and was placed under the ban of the Empire, while the duchy of Saxony was awarded to Albert the Bear of Brandenburg, and the duchy of Bavaria fell to the share of Leopold IV. (1138). Henry the Proud died in the following year, leaving behind him a son under age, who was known later on as Henry the Lion. His uncle Welf would not submit to the forfeiture by his house of their old dominions, and marched against Leopold to reconquer Bavaria, but he was defeated by Conrad at the battle of Weinsberg (1140). Leopold died shortly after this victory, and was succeeded both in the duchy of Bavaria and in the margraviate of Austria by his brother, Henry II." Henry II. endeavored to strengthen himself in Bavaria by marrying the widow of Henry the Proud, and by extorting from her son, Henry the Lion, a renunciation of the latter's rights. But Henry the Lion afterwards repudiated his renunciation, and in 1156 the German diet decided that Bavaria should be restored to him. Henry of Austria was wisely persuaded to yield to the decision, and Bavaria was given up. "He lost nothing by this unwilling act of disinterestedness, for he secured from the emperor considerable compensation. From this time forward, Austria, which had been largely increased by the addition of the greater part of the lands lying between the Enns and the Inn, was removed from its almost nominal subjection to Bavaria and became a separate duchy [Henry II. being the first hereditary Duke of Austria]. An imperial edict, dated the 21st of September, 1156, declares the new duchy hereditary even in the female line, and authorizes the dukes to absent themselves from all diets except those which were held in Bavarian territory. It also permits them, in case of a threatened extinction of their dynasty, to propose a successor. … Henry II. was one of the founders of Vienna. He constructed a fortress there, and, in order to civilize the surrounding country, sent for some Scotch monks, of whom there were many at this time in Germany." In 1177 Henry II. was succeeded by Leopold V., called the Virtuous. "In his reign the duchy of Austria gained Styria, an important addition to its territory. This province was inhabited by Slovenes and Germans, and took its name from the castle of Steyer, built in 980 by Otokar III., count of the Trungau. In 1056, it was created a margraviate, and in 1150 it was enlarged by the addition of the counties of Maribor (Marburg) and Cilly. In 1180, Otokar VI. of Styria (1164-1102) obtained the hereditary title of duke from the Emperor in return for his help against Henry the Lion." Dying without children, Otokar made Leopold of Austria his heir. "Styria was annexed to Austria in 1192, and has remained so ever since. … Leopold V. is the first of the Austrian princes whose name is known in Western Europe. He joined the third crusade," and quarrelled with Richard Coeur de Lion at the siege of St. Jean d' Acre. Afterwards, when Richard, returning home by the Adriatic, attempted to pass through Austrian territory incognito, Leopold revenged himself by seizing and imprisoning the English king, finally selling his royal captive to a still meaner Emperor for 20,000 marks. Leopold VI. who succeeded to the Austrian duchy in 1198, did much for the commerce of his country. "He made Vienna the staple town, and lent a sum of 30,000 marks of silver to the city to enable it to increase its trade. He adorned it with many new buildings, among them the Neue Burg." His son, called Frederick the Fighter (1230-1246) was the last of the Babenberg dynasty. His hand was against all his neighbors, including the Emperor Frederick II., and their hands were against him. He perished in June, 1246, on the banks of the Leitha, while at war with the Hungarians.

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 9.

ALSO IN: E. F. Henderson, Select History Documents of the Middle Ages, book 2, number 7.

{199}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282. Rodolph of Hapsburg and the acquisition of the Duchy for his family.

"The House of Austria owes its origin and power to Rhodolph of Hapsburgh, son of Albert IV. count of Hapsburgh. The Austrian genealogists, who have taken indefatigable but ineffectual pains to trace his illustrious descent from the Romans, carry it with great probability to Ethico, duke of Alsace, in the seventh century, and unquestionably to Guntram the Rich, count of Alsace and Brisgau, who flourished in the tenth." A grandson of Guntram, Werner by name, "became bishop of Strasburgh, and on an eminence above Windiisch, built the castle of Hapsburgh ['Habichtsburg' 'the castle of vultures'], which became the residence of the future counts, and gave a new title to the descendants of Guntram. … The successors of Werner increased their family inheritance by marriages, donations from the Emperors, and by becoming prefects, advocates, or administrators of the neighbouring abbeys, towns, or districts, and his great grandson, Albert III., was possessor of no inconsiderable territories in Suabia, Alsace, and that part of Switzerland which is now called the Argau, and held the landgraviate of Upper Alsace. His son, Rhodolph, received from the Emperor, in addition to his paternal inheritance, the town and district of Lauffenburgh, an imperial city on the Rhine. He acquired also a considerable accession of territory by obtaining the advocacy of Uri, Schweitz, and Underwalden, whose natives laid the foundation of the Helvetic Confederacy, by their union against the oppressions of feudal tyranny."

W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 1.

"On the death of Rodolph in 1232 his estates were divided between his sons Albert IV. and Rodolph II.; the former receiving the landgraviate of Upper Alsace, and the county of Hapsburg, together with the patrimonial castle; the latter, the counties Rheinfelden and Lauffenburg, and some other territories. Albert espoused Hedwige, daughter of Ulric, count of Kyburg; and from this union sprang the great Rodolph, who was born on the 1st of May 1218, and was presented at the baptismal font by the Emperor Frederic II. On the death of his father Albert in 1240, Rodolph succeeded to his estates; but the greater portion of these were in the hands of his paternal uncle, Rodolph of Lauffenburg; and all he could call his own lay within sight of the great hall of his castle. … His disposition was wayward and restless, and drew him into repeated contests with his neighbours and relations. … In a quarrel with the Bishop of Basel, Rodolph led his troops against that city, and burnt a convent in the suburbs, for which he was excommunicated by Pope Innocent IV. He then entered the service of Ottocar II. King of Bohemia, under whom he served, in company with the Teutonic Knights, in his wars against the Prussian pagans; and afterwards against Bela IV. King of Hungary." The surprising election, in 1272, of this little known count of Hapsburg, to be King of the Romans, with the substance if not the title of the imperial dignity which that election carried with it, was due to a singular friendship which he had acquired some fourteen years before. When Archbishop Werner, Elector of Mentz, was on his way to Rome in 1259, to receive the pallium, he "was escorted across the Alps by Rodolph of Hapsburg, and under his protection secured from the robbers who beset the passes. Charmed with the affability and frankness of his protector, the Archbishop conceived a strong regard for Rodolph;" and when, in 1272, after the Great Interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272], the Germanic Electors found difficulty in choosing an Emperor, the Elector of Mentz recommended his friend of Hapsburg as a candidate. "The Electors are described by a contemporary as desiring an Emperor but detesting his power. The comparative lowliness of the Count of Hapsburg recommended him as one from whom their authority stood in little jeopardy; but the claims of the King of Bohemia were vigorously urged; and it was at length agreed to decide the election by the voice of the Duke of Bavaria. Lewis without hesitation nominated Rodolph. … The early days of Rodolph's reign were disturbed by the contumacy of Ottocar, King of Bohemia. That Prince … persisted in refusing to acknowledge the Count of Hapsburg as his sovereign. Possessed of the dutchies of Austria, Styria, Carniola and Carinthia, he might rely upon his own resources; and he was fortified in his resistance by the alliance of Henry, Duke of Lower Bavaria. But the very possession of these four great fiefs was sufficient to draw down the envy and distrust of the other German Princes. To all these territories, indeed, the title of Ottocar was sufficiently disputable. On the death of Frederic II. fifth duke of Austria [and last of the Babenberg dynasty] in 1246, that dutchy, together with Styria and Carniola, was claimed by his niece Gertrude and his sister Margaret. By a marriage with the latter, and a victory over Bela IV. King of Hungary, whose uncle married Gertrude, Ottocar obtained possession of Austria and Styria; and in virtue of a purchase from Ulric, Duke of Carinthia and Carniola, he possessed himself of those dutchies on Ulric's death in 1269, in defiance of the claims of Philip, brother of the late Duke. Against so powerful a rival the Princes assembled at Augsburg readily voted succours to Rodolph; and Ottocar having refused to surrender the Austrian dominions, and even hanged the heralds who were sent to pronounce the consequent sentence of proscription, Rodolph with his accustomed promptitude took the field [1276], and confounded his enemy by a rapid march upon Austria. In his way he surprised and vanquished the rebel Duke of Bavaria, whom he compelled to join his forces; he besieged and reduced to the last extremity the city of Vienna; and had already prepared a bridge of boats to cross the Danube and invade Bohemia, when Ottocar arrested his progress by a message of submission. The terms agreed upon were severely humiliating to the proud soul of Ottocar," and he was soon in revolt again, with the support of the Duke of Bavaria. Rodolph marched against him, and a desperate battle was fought at Marschfeld, August 26, 1278, in which Ottocar, deserted at a critical moment by the Moravian troops, was defeated and slain. "The total loss of the Bohemians on that fatal day amounted to more than 14,000 men. In the first moments of his triumph, Rodolph designed to appropriate the dominions of his deceased enemy. {200} But his avidity was restrained by the Princes of the Empire, who interposed on behalf of the son of Ottocar; and Wenceslaus was permitted to retain Bohemia and Moravia. The projected union of the two families was now renewed: Judith of Hapsburg was affianced to the young King of Bohemia; whose sister Agnes was married to Rodolph, youngest son of the King of the Romans." In 1282, Rodolph, "after satisfying the several claimants to those territories by various cessions of lands …. obtained the consent of a Diet held at Augsburg to the settlement of Austria, Styria, and Carniola, upon his two surviving sons; who were accordingly jointly invested with those dutchies with great pomp and solemnity; and they are at this hour enjoyed by the descendants of Rodolph of Hapsburg."

Sir R. Comyn, History of the Western Empire, chapter 14.

ALSO IN: J. Planta, History of the Helvetic Confederacy. book 1, chapter 5 (volume 1).

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1282-1315. Relations of the House of Hapsburg to the Swiss Forest Cantons. The Tell Legend. The Battle of Morgarten.

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1290. Beginning of Hapsburg designs upon the crown of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1291-1349. Loss and recovery of the imperial crown. Liberation of Switzerland. Conflict between Frederick and Lewis of Bavaria. The imperial crown lost once more.

Rudolf of Hapsburg desired the title of King of the Romans for his son. "But the electors already found that the new house of Austria was becoming too powerful, and they refused. On his death, in fact, in 1291, a prince from another family, poor and obscure, Adolf of Nassau, was elected after an interregnum of ten months. His reign of six years is marked by two events; he sold himself to Edward I. in 1291, against Philip the Fair, for 100,000 pounds sterling, and used the money in an attempt to obtain in Thuringia a principality for his family as Rudolf had done in Austria. The electors were displeased and chose Albert of Austria to succeed him, who conquered and killed his adversary at Göllheim, near Worms (1298). The ten years reign of the new king of the Romans showed that he was very ambitious for his family, which he wished to establish on the throne of Bohemia, where the Slavonic dynasty had lately died out, and also in Thuringia and Meissen, where he lost a battle. He was also bent upon extending his rights, even unjustly—in Alsace and Switzerland—and it proved an unfortunate venture for him. For, on the one hand, he roused the three Swiss cantons of Uri, Schweitz, and Unterwalden to revolt; on the other hand, he roused the wrath of his nephew John of Swabia, whom he defrauded of his inheritance (domains in Switzerland. Swabia, and Alsace). As he was crossing the Reuss, John thrust him through with his sword (1308). The assassin escaped. One of Albert's daughters, Agnes, dowager queen of Hungary, had more than a thousand innocent people killed to avenge the death of her father. The greater part of the present Switzerland had been originally included in the Kingdom of Burgundy, and was ceded to the empire, together with that kingdom, in 1033. A feudal nobility, lay and ecclesiastic, had gained a firm footing there. Nevertheless, by the 12th century the cities had risen to some importance. Zurich, Basel, Bern, and Freiburg had an extensive commerce and obtained municipal privileges. Three little cantons, far in the heart of the Swiss mountains, preserved more than all the others their indomitable spirit of independence. When Albert of Austria became Emperor [King?] he arrogantly tried to encroach upon their independence. Three heroic mountaineers, Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of Melchthal, and Walter Fürst, each with ten chosen friends, conspired together at Rütli, to throw off the yoke. The tyranny of the Austrian bailiff Gessler, and William Tell's well-aimed arrow, if tradition is to be believed, gave the signal for the insurrection."

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

"Albert's violent death left to Leopold, his successor in the duchy of Austria, the care of repressing the rebellion. He failed and was completely defeated at Mortgarten (1315). That was Switzerland's field of Marathon. … When Rudolf of Hapsburg was chosen by the electors, it was because of his poverty and weakness. At his death accordingly they did not give their votes for his son Albert. … Albert, however, succeeded in overthrowing his rival. But on his death they were firm in their decision not to give the crown for a third time to the new and ambitions house of Hapsburg. They likewise refused, for similar reasons, to accept Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the Fair, whom the latter tried to place on the imperial throne, in order that he might indirectly rule over Germany. They supported the Count of Luxemburg, who became Henry VII. By choosing emperors [kings?] who were poor, the electors placed them under the temptation of enriching themselves at the expense of the empire. Adolf failed, it is true, in Thuringia, but Rudolf gained Austria by victory; Henry succeeded in Bohemia by means of marriage, and Bohemia was worth more than Austria at that time because, besides Moravia, it was made to cover Silesia and a part of Lusatia (Oberlausitz). Henry's son, John of Luxemburg, married the heiress to that royal crown. As for Henry himself he remained as poor as before. He had a vigorous, restless spirit, and went to try his fortunes on his own account beyond the Alps. … He was seriously threatening Naples, when he died either from some sickness or from being poisoned by a Dominican in partaking of the host (1313). A year's interregnum followed; then two emperors [kings?] at once: Lewis of Bavaria and Frederick the Fair, son of the Emperor Albert. After eight years of war, Lewis gained his point by the victory of Mühldorf (1322), which delivered Frederick into his hands. He kept him in captivity for three years, and at the end of that time became reconciled with him, and they were on such good terms that both bore the title of King and governed in common. The fear inspired in Lewis by France and the Holy See dictated this singular agreement. Henry VII. had revived the policy of interference by the German emperors in the affairs of Italy, and had kindled again the quarrel with the Papacy which had long appeared extinguished. Lewis IV. did the same. … While Boniface VIII. was making war on Philip the Fair, Albert allied himself with him; when, on the other hand, the Papacy was reduced to the state of a servile auxiliary to France, the Emperor returned to his former hostility. {201} When ex-communicated by Pope John XXII., who wished to give the empire to the king of France, Charles IV., Lewis IV. made use of the same weapons. … Tired of a crown loaded with anxieties, Lewis of Bavaria was finally about to submit to the Pope and abdicate, when the electors perceived the necessity of supporting their Emperor and of formally releasing the supreme power from foreign dependency which brought the whole nation to shame. That was the object of the Pragmatic Sanction of Frankfort, pronounced in 1338 by the Diet, on the report of the electors. … The king of France and Pope Clement VI., whose claims were directly affected by this declaration, set up against Lewis IV. Charles of Luxemburg, son of John the Blind, who became king of Bohemia in 1346, when his father had been killed fighting on the French side at the battle of Crécy. Lewis died the following year. He had gained possession of Brandenburg and the Tyrol for his house, but it was unable to retain possession of them. The latter county reverted to the house of Austria in 1363. The electors most hostile to the French party tried to put up, as a rival candidate to Charles of Luxemburg, Edward III., king of England, who refused the empire; then they offered it to a brave knight, Gunther of Schwarzburg, who died, perhaps poisoned, after a few months (1349). The king of Bohemia then became Emperor as Charles IV. by a second election."

V. Duruy, The History of the Middle Ages, book 9, chapter 30.

See, also, Germany: A. D. 1314-1347.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364. Forged charters of Duke Rudolf. The Privilegium Majus. His assumption of the Archducal title. Acquisition of Tyrol. Treaties of inheritance with Bohemia and Hungary.

King John, of Bohemia, had married his second son, John Henry, at the age of eight, to the afterwards notable Margaret Maultasche (Pouch mouth), daughter of the duke of Tyrol and Carinthia, who was then twelve years old. He hoped by this means to reunite those provinces to Bohemia. To thwart this scheme, the Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, and the two Austrian princes, Albert the Wise and Otto the Gay, came to an understanding. "By the treaty of Hagenau (1330), it was arranged that on the death of duke Henry, who had no male heirs, Carinthia should become the property of Austria, Tyrol that of the Emperor. Henry died in 1335, whereupon the Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, declared that Margaret Maultasche had forfeited all rights of inheritance, and proceeded to assign the two provinces to the Austrian princes, with the exception of some portion of the Tyrol which devolved on the house of Wittelsbach. Carinthia alone, however, obeyed the Emperor; the Tyrolese nobles declared for Margaret, and, with the help of John of Bohemia, this princess was able to keep possession of this part of her inheritance. … Carinthia also did Dot long remain in the undisputed possession of Austria. Margaret was soon divorced from her very youthful husband (1342), and shortly after married the son of the Emperor Louis of Bavaria, who hoped to be able to invest his son, not only with Tyrol, but also with Carinthia, and once more we find the houses of Hapsburg and Luxemburg united by a common interest. … When … Charles IV. of Bohemia was chosen emperor, he consented to leave Carinthia in the possession of Austria. Albert did homage for it. … According to the wish of their father, the four sons of Albert reigned after him; but the eldest, Rudolf IV., exercised executive authority in the name of the others [1358-1365]. … He was only 19 when he came to the throne, but he had already married one of the daughters of the Emperor Charles IV. Notwithstanding this family alliance, Charles had not given Austria such a place in the Golden Bull [see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1492] as seemed likely to secure either her territorial importance or a proper position for her princes. They had not been admitted into the electoral college of the Empire, and yet their scattered possessions stretched from the banks of the Leitha to the Rhine. … These grievances were enhanced by their feeling of envy towards Bohemia, which had attained great prosperity under Charles IV. It was at this time that, in order to increase the importance of his house, Rudolf, or his officers of state, had recourse to a measure which was often employed in that age by princes, religious bodies, and even by the Holy See. It was pretended that there were in existence a whole series of charters which had been granted to the house of Austria by various kings and emperors, and which secured to their princes a position entirely independent of both empire and Emperor. According to these documents, and more especially the one called the 'privilegium majus,' the duke of Austria owed no kind of service to the empire, which was, however, bound to protect him; … he was to appear at the diets with the title of archduke, and was to have the first place among the electors. … Rudolf pretended that these documents had just come to light, and demanded their confirmation from Charles IV., who refused it. Nevertheless on the strength of these lying charters, he took the title of palatine archduke, without waiting to ask the leave of Charles, and used the royal insignia. Charles IV., who could not fail to be irritated by these pretensions, in his turn revived the claims which he had inherited from Premysl Otokar II. to the lands of Austria, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola. These claims, however, were simply theoretical, and no attempt was made to enforce them, and the mediation of Louis the Great, King of Hungary, finally led to a treaty between the two princes, which satisfied the ambition of the Habsburgs (1364). By this treaty, the houses of Habsburg in Austria and of Luxemburg in Bohemia each guaranteed the inheritance of their lands to the other, in case of the extinction of either of the two families, and the estates of Bohemia and Austria ratified this agreement. A similar compact was concluded between Austria and Hungary, and thus the boundaries of the future Austrian state were for the first time marked out. Rudolf himself gained little by these long and intricate negotiations, Tyrol being all he added to his territory. Margaret Maultasche had married her son Meinhard to the daughter of Albert the Wise, at the same time declaring that, in default of heirs male to her son, Tyrol should once more become the possession of Austria, and it did so in 1363. Rudolf immediately set out for Botzen, and there received the homage of the Tyrolese nobles. …The acquisition of Tyrol was most important to Austria. It united Austria Proper with the old possessions of the Habsburgs in Western Germany, and opened the way to Italy. Margaret Maultasche died at Vienna in 1369. The memory of this restless and dissolute princess still survives among the Tyrolese."

L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, pages 143-148.

{202}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1386-1388. Defeats by the Swiss at Sempach and Naefels.

SEE SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1437-1516. Contests for Hungary and Bohemia. The right of Succession to the Hungarian Crown secured.

"Europe would have had nothing to fear from the Barbarians, if Hungary had been permanently united to Bohemia, and had held them in check. But Hungary interfered both with the independence and the religion of Bohemia. In this way they weakened each other, and in the 15th century wavered between the two Sclavonic and German powers on their borders (Poland and Austria) [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442, and 1442-1458]. United under a German prince from 1455 to 1458, separated for a time under national sovereigns (Bohemia until 1471, Hungary until 1490), they were once more united under Polish princes until 1526, at which period they passed definitively into the hands of Austria. After the reign of Ladislas of Austria, who won so much glory by the exploits of John Hunniades, George Podiebrad obtained the crown of Bohemia, and Matthias Corvinus, the son of Hunniades, was elected King of Hungary (1458). These two princes opposed successfully the chimerical pretensions of the Emperor Frederick III. Podiebrad protected the Hussites and incurred the enmity of the Popes. Matthias victoriously encountered the Turks and obtained the favour of Paul II., who offered him the crown of Podiebrad, his father-in-law. The latter opposed to the hostility of Matthias the alliance of the King of Poland, whose eldest son, Ladislas, he designated as his successor. At the same time, Casimir, the brother of Ladislas, endeavoured to take from Matthias the crown of Hungary. Matthias, thus pressed on all sides, was obliged to renounce the conquest of Bohemia, and content himself with the provinces of Moravia, Silesia, and Lusatia, which were to return to Ladislas if Matthias died first (1475-1478). The King of Hungary compensated himself at the expense of Austria. On the pretext that Frederick III. had refused to give him his daughter, he twice invaded his states and retained them in his possession [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487]. With this great prince Christendom lost its chief defender, Hungary her conquests and her political preponderance (1490). The civilization which he had tried to introduce into his kingdom was deferred for many centuries. … Ladislas (of Poland), King of Bohemia, having been elected King of Hungary, was attacked by his brother John Albert, and by Maximilian of Austria, who both pretended to that crown. He appeased his brother by the cession of Silesia (1491), and Maximilian by vesting in the House of Austria the right of succession to the throne of Hungary, in case he himself should die without male issue. Under Ladislas, and under his son Louis II., who succeeded him while still a child, in 1516 Hungary was ravaged with impunity by the Turks."

J. Michelet, A Summary of Modern History, chapter 4.

See, also, BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1438-1493. The Imperial Crown lastingly regained. The short reign of Albert II., and the long reign of Frederick III.

"After the death of Sigismund, the princes, in 1438, elected an emperor [king?] from the house of Austria, which, with scarcely any intermission, has ever since occupied the ancient throne of Germany. Albert II. of Austria, who, as son-in-law of the late Emperor Sigismund, had become at the same time King of Hungary and Bohemia, was a well-meaning, distinguished prince, and would, without doubt, have proved of great benefit to the empire; but he died … in the second year of his reign, after his return from an expedition against the Turks. … In the year 1431, during the reign of Sigismund, a new council was assembled at Basle, in order to carry on the work of reforming the church as already commenced at Constance. But this council soon became engaged in many perplexing controversies with Pope Eugene IV. … The Germans, for a time, took no part in the dispute; at length, however, under the Emperor [King?] Albert II., they formally adopted the chief decrees of the council of Basle, at a diet held at Mentz in the year 1439. … Amongst the resolutions then adopted were such as materially circumscribed the existing privileges of the pope. … These and other decisions, calculated to give important privileges and considerable independence to the German church, were, in a great measure, annulled by Albert's cousin and successor, Duke Frederick of Austria, who was elected by the princes after him in the year 1440, as Frederick III. … Frederick, the emperor, was a prince who meant well but, at the same time, was of too quiet and easy a nature; his long reign presents but little that was calculated to distinguish Germany or add to its renown. From the east the empire was endangered by the approach of an enemy—the Turks, against whom no precautionary measures were adopted. They, on the 29th of May, 1453, conquered Constantinople. … They then made their way towards the Danube, and very nearly succeeded also in taking Hungary [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1442-1458]. … The Hungarians, on the death of the son of the Emperor Albert II., Wladislas Posthumus, in the year 1457, without leaving an heir to the throne, chose Matthias, the son of John Corvinus, as king, being resolved not to elect one from amongst the Austrian princes. The Bohemians likewise selected a private nobleman for their king, George Padriabrad [or Podiebrad], and thus the Austrian house found itself for a time rejected from holding possession of either of these countries. … In Germany, meantime, there existed numberless contests and feuds; each party considered only his own personal quarrels. … The emperor could not give any weight to public measures: scarcely could he maintain his dignity amongst his own subjects. The Austrian nobility were even bold enough to send challenges to their sovereign; whilst the city of Vienna revolted, and his brother Albert, taking pleasure in this disorder, was not backward in adding to it. Things even went to such an extremity, that, in 1462, the Emperor Frederick, together with his consort and son, Maximilian, then four years of age, was besieged by his subjects in his own castle of Vienna. A plebeian burgher, named Holzer, had placed himself at the head of the insurgents, and was made burgomaster, whilst Duke Albert came to Vienna personally to superintend the siege of the castle, which was intrenched and bombarded. {203} …The German princes, however, could not witness with indifference such disgraceful treatment of their emperor, and they assembled to liberate him. George Padriabrad, King of Bohemia, was the first who hastened to the spot with assistance, set the emperor at liberty, and effected a reconciliation between him and his brother. The emperor, however, was obliged to resign to him, for eight years, Lower Austria and Vienna. Albert died in the following year. … In the Germanic empire, the voice of the emperor was as little heeded as in his hereditary lands. … The feudal system raged under Frederick's reign to such an extent, that it was pursued even by the lower classes. Thus, in 1471, the shoeblacks in Leipsic sent a challenge to the university of that place; and the bakers of the Count Palatine Lewis, and those of the Margrave of Baden defied several imperial cities in Swabia. The most important transaction in the reign of Frederick, was the union which he formed with the house of Burgundy, and which laid the foundation for the greatness of Austria. … In the year 1486, the whole of the assembled princes, influenced especially by the representations of the faithful and now venerable Albert, called the Achilles of Brandenburg, elected Maximilian, the emperor's son, King of Rome. Indeed, about this period a changed and improved spirit began to show itself in a remarkable degree in the minds of many throughout the empire, so that the profound contemplator of coming events might easily see the dawn of a new era. … These last years were the best in the whole life of the emperor, and yielded to him in return for his many sufferings that tranquillity which was so well merited by his faithful generous disposition. He died on the 19th of August, 1493, after a reign of 54 years. The emperor lived long enough to obtain, in the year 1490, the restoration of his hereditary estates by the death of King Matthias, by means of a compact made with Wladislas, his successor."