Page:The New Europe - Volume 5.pdf/351

 “Worst of all, these impertinent statements were made in the Austrian Parliament without being refuted by the President or the Premier or anyone else. Qui tacet, consentire videtur. Roman law adds that silence may be regarded as consent, if in the event of a contrary opinion existing a protest would have been fitting or necessary. And if ever a protest were fitting or necessary, as the most elementary claim of alliance and comradeship, then this was such an occasion, and those who neglected this duty became, voluntarily or involuntarily, accomplices of this criminal onslaught on Hungary.”

In Austria there was a systematic agitation going on against Hungary, which was, he went on to argue, blamed for all the faults of food distribution in Austria itself. In conclusion, Baron Perényi declined to enter into polemics with the Czechs (sic!), but would merely say to them: “Neither 13 nor 3 counties, not one foot of Hungarian soil will we allow to be stolen from us. What they want, let them conquer by force of arms! Let them send the notorious Czech brigades against us! But we also have a serious word to address to those Austrians who were till now our comrades, who have a heart for the Monarchy’s interests, and are trustworthy supporters of the dynasty. Where do they think it will lead if they allow the peoples of Austria to be incited still further against us, and put no break upon this hatred and passion? Are they not afraid lest in Hungary also great and powerful parties might arise, whose only watchword was: ‘Down with the false friends! Away from Austria!'? Halt, before it is too late, and remember that those who work at the break-down of Hungary are digging Austria’s grave!”

After a speech from Mr. Polónyi (the notorious Minister of Justice in the second Wekerle Cabinet, 1906–7), who argued that the formation of an independent Hungarian army was the only way of stopping such intrigues, the House was addressed by Count Julius Andrássy. He professed not to feel any alarm as to the national and federalist aspirations of the Czechs, Southern Slavs and Ukrainians: for the events of this war have shown that Hungary is the surest support of the Monarchy, while the tendencies of the Czechs are a grave danger for the dynasty and the Monarchy. We (Magyars) devoted all our powers to the cause of the Monarchy and the dynasty, and we did this from duty, loyalty and also egoism. Count Széchenyi in 1848 summoned the nation to support the dynasty and assure to the Magyars a dominant rôle. At that time it was impossible, because there were vital differences between the outlook of the dynasty and of the Magyar nation, and because the dynasty stood for interests in foreign policy with which the nation had nothing in common. What was then impossible has now happened without a Széchenyi, without any great men: the nation has itself felt the interests of the dynasty and of the nation to be identical and placed all its forces at the service of the throne.”

The Czechs, on the other hand, Count Andrássy continued, have