Page:History of the Thirty Years' War - Gindely - Volume 1.djvu/105

 sacrifices which the house of Hapsburg had made to maintain the crown of Hungary against the Turks. He showed that the claims founded upon this service were such as ought not to be surrendered so lightly by the admission of the right of election. In closing his argument, Khlesl stated that there was but one way out of this labyrinth. The prelates and magnates should persevere in their good intentions, separate themselves from the lower nobility, and “proclaim” Ferdinand King. Pazman and Forgach were inclined to concur in Khlesl’s proposition, but the former only persisted in this view, while the latter afterwards refused his consent to any such step. The opposition in the Diet was, however, brought to this, that they would not further persist in claiming “absolute” freedom of election, but would be content if the Diploma should make mention of a “free” election. Still further: they would assure the Emperor that, in emphasizing their right of free election, they had no intention to exclude the Archducal house, but “would always have a due consideration for its members.” This explanation being made, the most prominent members of the Diet went to the royal envoys, and requested them to bring it to the Emperor’s knowledge.

Matthias, perceiving that he would probably obtain nothing more, issued the desired Diploma, stating in it: “That the ancient right of free election of their Kings, which the ancestors of the present Hungarian Estates had exercised and bequeathed to their posterity, he now, for the present and future time, confirmed, ratified, and declared inviolable.” It further said: “The above and other articles of the Diploma may perhaps give occasion to interpretations both false in themselves and injurious to the house of Austria; nevertheless the Emperor did