Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 6.djvu/580

 toms-union (Zollverein), which made a commercial unit of Prussia, central and southern Germany. Now for the first time the exertions of the commercial classes during the eighteenth century brought forth ample fruit, and Germany regained the financial ability to undertake large commercial enterprises. Important industries flourished and traffic was increased many-fold, while the middle class gained a clearer perception of the influence of foreign and domestic policies on economic conditions. The leaders (Hansemann, Mevissen, and von der Heydt) in the manufacturing district of the Lower Rhine, the most promising region in Germany from an economic point of view, were ready as early as 1840 to guide the fortunes of Prussia, provided they could obtain political rights. Holding radical views in politics and religion, they adopted also the political demands of their intellectual kinsmen in France, the Liberals: the creation of a constitutional parliament and the remodelling of the body politic in accordance with their social and economic principles. As Prussia like Austria had not granted its subjects a constitution, the struggle of these men for influence was conducted under difficulties. Their efforts, however, were aided by the existence of constitutional government in some of the smaller states since 1819, whereby a number of men, mostly university professors, were enabled in the several Diets to attack the bureaucratic administrations. These men were also Liberals, but their primary demand was the substitution of popular government for that of the bureaucracy; the leaders were Rotteck and Welcker of Baden; and of the moderates, Dahlmann. As early as 1837 matters came to a crisis in Hanover, while in Baden the contest lasted from 1837 to 1844. In answer to the opposition they called forth the Liberals raised the battle-cry of national unity, claiming that union would be the strongest guarantee of civic liberty. Their programme, as well as the appeal to the moral feeling of the people made by many of their leaders, aroused universal sympathy. As champions both of the principle of national unity and of economic and social progress, they hoped soon to be able to lead the entire people in a struggle against the reactionary administrations of the individual states. The latter, blinded by their particularistic prejudices, did not rally their forces to meet the threatening attack. As early as the forties differences on politico-economic questions weakened the customs-union between Prussia and the states of southern Germany. Metternich had repeatedly urged that Austria become a member of the customs-union. But it now appeared that the social and economic differences, always existing between Austria and the rest of Germany, had been so accentuated by the selfish policy pursued by Austria since 1815 that a strong opposition to its entering the customs-union came from within Austria itself.

The position of the Catholic Church also became critical. The expectations of the Congress of Vienna had not been realized. Catholicity, it is true, owing to the splendid abilities of a number of men, partly the sons of the Church and partly converts, exercised a leading influence in the field of political sciences (Haller, Adam Müller, Frederick von Schlegel, Görres, Jarcke, Radowitz), in history (Buchholtz, Hurter), in art (Cornelius, Overbeck, Veit), and in theology (Möhler, Döllinger, Kuhn, Hefele). But in actual political life and in connexion with the life of the masses it fared ill. The bureaucratic state administration so fettered the Catholic Church that it was hardly able to stir, while Liberalism, for the most part anti-Catholic, threatened to place a gulf between the Church and the people. The deep piety of the people, however, was manifested both in 1844, on the occasion of the pilgrimage to Trier, and in the rejection of German Catholicism (1844-46). The attempt, however, to build up a Christian and anti-revolutionary party in conjunction with a few conservative Protestants (the two von Gerlachs, and the periodical "Politisches Wochenblatt" in Berlin; Görres and his circle of friends in Munich), on the basis of Haller's political teaching, was unpopular and altogether out of sympathy with the actual politico-social and politico-economic development of the nation. Nevertheless a few courageous politicians attacked at the same time the bureaucratic administration and Liberalism; thus Görres published his "Athanasius" in 1837, and founded with friends the periodical "Historisch-politische Blätter" in 1838; others were Andlaw and Buss in Baden, Kuhn and Hefele in Würtemberg, Moritz Lieber in Nassau. In Bavaria the Catholics were represented by the Abel ministry (1837-47). In Austria Metternich favoured them.

.—The wide-spread political agitation in Western Europe, which from 1846 had been undermining the foundations of the system of government established by the Congress of Vienna, culminated in Germany in March, 1848. The reigning princes, unprepared for the emergency, turned the governments over to the Liberals and ordered elections for a German Parliament on the basis of universal suffrage. Austria and Prussia, in addition, now granted constitutions to their peoples and, besides the national, summoned local parliaments. On 18 May the German National Parliament was opened at Frankfurt, Heinrich von Gagern presiding. Archduke Johann of Austria was elected provisional imperial administrator. The success of Liberalism was apparently complete, the individual existence of the separate states practically annulled, and the establishment of a constitutional German national State, as opposed to the development as a confederation, seemed assured. The only difficult question was, apparently, how Prussia was to be "merged" into Germany. However, as Frederick William IV of Prussia (1840-61) had expressed his sympathy with German unity, while the Liberals were prepared to make it as easy as possible for Prussia, as the head of the customs-union and the leading Protestant power in Germany, to surrender its individuality as a state, and were ready to offer to Prussia the hereditary imperial crown, the Parliament made light of this obstacle. Austria, rent by grievous national dissensions, seemed ready to step aside of its own accord.

In the autumn of 1848, however, the situation became complicated. The draft of a new constitution made by the Liberals awakened the distrust of the Catholics by its provisions regarding the Church and the schools. At the suggestion of the Pius Association of Mainz, the Catholics flooded the Parliament with petitions, while in October the Catholic societies assembled at Mainz and the German bishops at Würzburg. The Liberals gave way but conditions remained strained. The great mass of Catholics repudiated the proposed settlement of the German question in the "Little German" (Kleindeutsche) sense, which advocated the exclusion of Austria from German and the conferring of the imperial dignity upon Prussia; they demanded that Austria should remain part of Germany and should be its leader. This was called the "Great German" (Grossdeutsche) view. Simultaneously a radical reaction broke out against the Liberals. Liberalism stood for ethical and political progress only, not for social progress; nevertheless it had received the support of the labouring classes, who were impoverished by the recent industrial development but not ready to become a political organization, because of the Liberal opposition to the existing state of things. Now that the Parliament did nothing to better their condition they flocked to the standards of radical agitators. Before the spring of 1849 repeated disturbances resulted, especially in Southern Germany; furthermore Radicalism obtained a majority in the constitutional assembly