No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Magyar County: A Study in the Comparative History of Municipal Institutions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2009
Extract
Brief description of Hungary—General characteristics of Hungary in the Middle Ages—Statistical comparison of the territorial development of Prussia and Hungary—Hungary a ‘national state’—Standpoint wherefrom to appreciate the Magyar County—History of the Magyar County—Comparison of Magyar and English counties—Sovereignty of the Magyar County—Comparison with Slav counties—Salutary effect of the Hungarian County—The privileges of noblemen in the administration of Hungarian counties—Recriminations of the non-Magyar nationalities of Hungary.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1893
References
page 37 note 1 Fésüs, George, Magy. Közigazg. fog (1887), p. 31Google Scholar.
page 37 note 2 G. Fésiis, ib.
page 38 note 1 See Fix, W., Die Terrilorialgeschichte des preussischen Staates (Berlin, 1869, 2nd ed.)Google Scholar.
page 39 note 1 Fix, W., op. cit. p. 260Google Scholar.
page 39 note 2 Id. ib.
page 39 note 3 Id. ib. pp. 260 sq. By ‘miles’; German miles are meant.
page 40 note 1 The Kingdom of Poland, of which Lewis the Great, King of Hungary, became King in 1370, on the strength of a contract with Kasimir the Great of Poland, had no organic relation whatever to the state of Hungary. Moreover, that union of Poland and Hungary, although again revived subsequently, never lasted longer than a few years.
page 40 note 2 Compare Staudenmaier, F. A., Geschichte der Bischofswahlen (Tübingen, 1830), p. 249Google Scholar; Wiltsch, J. E. T., Handbook of the Geography and Statistics of the Church (Lond. 1859), i. p. 428Google Scholar sq.; and Sugenheim's Staatsleben des Klerus im M.A., passim.
page 40 note 3 On the beginnings of the territorial sovereignty of German bishops see especially Merkel, F., De Republica Alemannorum (1849), note 27 to § xiiGoogle Scholar.
page 41 note 1 See p. 48 sq.
page 42 note 1 There is an immense literature on the German institution of the Mark, but scarcely any on the Hungarian county. However, the typical importance of the latter is considerably greater than that of the former, and modern Hungarian scholars are only far too ‘liberalism’ -bitten to devote the requisite studies to this their cardinal institution.
page 42 note 2 The various etymological theories are discussed in Krajner's, Emerich v. Die urspriingliche Siaatsverfassung Vngarns … bis zum Jahre 1382 (Vienna, 1872), p. 167Google Scholar, n. I.
page 42 note 3 Botka, Theodor, ‘Jogtörténelmi tanulmanyok a magyar vármegyék szervezetéről’ (in Budapesti Szemle, 1865, Kotet I, p. 306)Google Scholar. Of Mr. Botka, Fred. Pesty, one of the best known Magyar historians, says (in A Várispánsdgok története, Budapest, 1882, p. 2)Google Scholar that he is the greatest authority on the history of the Magyar county.
page 43 note 1 Szalay, L., Magyarország tőbrténete, i. p. 11 (1st ed.)Google Scholar.
page 44 note 1 Gneist, R., Self-Government (3rd ed. Berlin, 1871), p. 8Google Scholar.
page 44 note 2 Krajner, E. v., Ursprgl. Vfassg. Ungarns, pp. 176Google Scholarsq.; and the literature quoted in F. Pesty's Várispánságok, Preface.
page 44 note 3 Argum. F. Pesty's work quoted in note 2.
page 44 note 4 Botka, Th., l.c, 318Google Scholar, quoting the ‘Carmen miserabile’ of Rogerius.
page 44 note 5 Botka, Th., l.c. p. 318Google Scholar.
page 45 note 1 In fact, he has always been considered the representative of the king in the county. Compare Statute 16 of 1222, and other Hungarian laws.
page 45 note 2 The statement, current in older treatises on English law (e.g. in Impley's, John The Office of Sheriff, London, 1800, p. 9)Google Scholar, that sheriffs, previous to 9 Edw. II., St. 2, were elected by the people, has been corrected by Stubbs, Bishop. See Constit. Hist. ii. pp. 225, 226Google Scholar.
page 45 note 3 Glasson, Ernest, Hist, du Droit et des Institutions polit. civ. et judic. de l'Angleterre (Par. 1883), tome vi. p. 486Google Scholar: ‘Les juges de paix anglais n'ont de commun avec les notres que le nom.’ The French juge de paix is part of a bureaucracy which in times anterior to 1848 was entirely unknown in Hungary.
page 45 note 4 1486, 8 tcz. (statute 8 of the year i486); 1498, 15 tcz., 1514, 4 tcz.
page 46 note 1 Botka, Th., l.c. (Budapesti Szemle, 1865, 2k Kötet), pp. 173–176Google Scholar.
page 46 note 2 Id. l.c. pp. 184–186.
page 46 note 3 1504, 3 tcz.
page 46 note 4 Botka, (in Bud. Szemle, 1865, 1 Köt.), p. 436Google Scholarsq.
page 47 note 1 Botka, , l.c. p. 450Google Scholar, and Budapesti Szemle, 1866, pp. 229–33.
page 47 note 2 Id. ib.
page 47 note 3 Generally for one year.
page 48 note 1 Botka, , ib. p. 454Google Scholar.
page 48 note 2 Up to the first half of the seventeenth century they did not form members of the magistracy of the county. Botka, , ib. p. 455Google Scholar.
page 48 note 3 Id. ib.
page 49 note 1 Budap. Szemle, 1866, p. 223 (Botka, )Google Scholar.
page 49 note 2 Ib. 1865, II. Köt. pp. 184–186.
page 50 note 1 1291, 17; 1298, 7, 20, 21, 23, 41; 1444, 33; 1471, 12; &c.
page 50 note 2 The last case of that powerful, if passive, resistance happened in 1859–1860.
page 50 note 3 Budap. Szemle, 1865, II. Köt. p. 167Google Scholar.
page 50 note 4 See the treatises of Lengnich, Hartknoch, Hiippe, and others on the constitutional law of Poland.
page 50 note 5 The well-known diets where each noble had the full veto.
page 50 note 6 Macieiowsky, W. A., Slav. Rechtsgeschichte (1835), i. p. 54Google Scholar sq.
page 52 note 1 This right was accorded to some classes of non-nobles after and in consequence of the events of 1848.
page 52 note 2 Nearly all towns were built and inhabited by Germans and non-nobles.