Page:History of the Thirty Years' War - Gindely - Volume 1.djvu/103

 imperial party, was brought again into the foreground and ruled the debate. In course of the proceedings the royal envoys soon came to perceive that they could not get around it, and sought only to limit its meaning by epithets which should incidentally fortify the hereditary right. On the other hand, the opposition demanded that before the election Matthias should execute a Diploma acknowledging the free and “unlimited” right of the Estates to elect their King. Both parties appealed to the historic right. What is history’s answer to this appeal?

The Hapsburg princes and their adherents cited first the incontestable fact that, since the times of Stephen, the Hungarian crown had been hereditary, and that precedent had developed this right into a sacred constitutional law of the land. If the throne had been filled by election, it was an offence against custom, for which atonement could not be too soon made. According to this theory, any dynasty which had once occupied the throne of Hungary was its hereditary owner. The defenders of the hereditary right cited further the treaties of Oedenburg (1463) and Presburg (1491) as securing, with the concurrence of the Hungarian Diet, the hereditary claims of the house of Hapsburg in case of the extinction of the reigning royal family. Finally, the declaration of the Hungarian Imperial Diet of 1547 favored the house of Hapsburg; on this occasion the Estates demanded of Ferdinand I. that he send his son Maximilian to Hungary as Regent, and supported this demand with the words: “They had not only chosen Ferdinand as their King, but subjected themselves for all future time to him and his heirs as their lords.” Thus, therefore, according to the view of the imperial party, “precedent, early treaties,