Page:The Czechoslovak Review, vol3, 1919.djvu/199

 unite the German nation in a real union, to strengthen the sentiment of German nationality, to secure the greatness of Germans without and within. I honor your resolve and the motives by which you are inspired, but I regret that I cannot share them. I am not a German, or at least I do not feel as if I were one I am a Czech, of Slavic origin and all that I am and all that I have I place at the service of my country. It is true that my nation is small, but from the outset it has possessed an historical individuality. Its princes have acted in concert with German princes, but the people have never considered themselves German.”

Notwithstanding Palacký’s rebuff, the Frankfort Parliament was so eager to secure its purpose, that messengers were dispatched to Prague to confer with the Czech National Committee. The Czechs contended that the Frankfort Parliament was endeavoring to force upon them a condition which they had rejected. The Germans on their side advanced certain well known arguments of expediency in favor of a closer union between Bohemia and Germany.

The Vienna Government took a most singular stand on the issue. Not to hurt the feelings of a strong Austrian party which favored sending deputies to Frankfort, the Ministry of Interior announced that citizens might either vote for representatives or abstain from voting, as they chose.

The Czech National Committee finding that the government was either unable or unwilling to protect the nation, resolved on measures of self-protection. It issued an appeal to the Austrian Slavs to meet at the end of May (1848) in Prague, to protest against the designs of the Frankfort Parliament. This led to the much talked of Slavic Congress in Prague. Foremost among the men who were responsible for the convocation of the Congress was Palacký, who, when the Congress assembled, was elected its presiding officer.

In accordance with the resolution of the Congress Palacký was charged with the composing of a manifest to the nations of Europe and a petition to the emperor. In the first document Palacký advocated the principle of equality of nations, then little heeded in Europe. He condemned the policy which treated states and peoples as the chattels of the rulers.

The manifest concluded with an invitation to a General Congress of European nations, in which questions of international nature were to be discussed and settled. The second document, the petition to the emperor, was not completed, owing to revolutionary disturbances breaking out in Prague. From the rough draft Palacký prepared one could, however, guess as to its contents. It urged the reconstruction of Austria on lines of federalism as opposed to centralism; that is, giving home rule to every race inhabiting the empire.

The war of 1866 between Prussia and Austria introduced a new order of things in the empire. In 1867 Austria concluded a settlement with Hungary, whereby full autonomy had been granted to the latter country. By virtue of the settlement the empire was divided into two halves, Austrian and Hungarian. Bohemia, which in 1526 helped to lay the foundation to the Hapsburg monarchy, was wholly ignored. Despite vigorous protest in Parliament, Bohemia was included in the Austrian half. In this political tragedy Palacký and RigerRieger [sic] alike played a conspicuous role. Chiefly upon the counsel of Palacký, the Czech and Moravian deputies left the Parliament in a body as a protest against the dual system of government and for twelve years did not reenter it.

Following the introduction of dualism a feeling of gloom settled over the nation. The Czechs felt that they had been shamefully betrayed; that the loyalty they had shown to the crown in the late disastrous war wih Prussia was unappreciated.

At this time an event occurred which helped to raise the dejected spirits of the people. The Russians held that year (1867) an Ethnographic Exhibition in Moscow to which, among other Slavs, they invited the Czechs. A large deputation led by Palacký, Dr. Rieger and Dr. Brauner went to Moscow. This pilgrimage was represented by their enemies as an act of treason. Under the circumstances the journey was not without deep political significance. The enthusiastic reception which had been accorded in Moscow, Petrograd and elsewhere to the Czech delegation steadied the nation’s confidence in itself, giving it assurance that it was not without powerful friends, even though these friends were beyond the border of their own state.

A few words concerning Palacký’s personality and domestic life. In appearance