reform ot the franchise with a view to putting the representation of the Rumanians on a just basis. On April 19 1915 Parlia- ment, which would have come to an end on the following July 15, passed a bill extending its life for another year. In Oct. the question of the coat-of-arms and flag of the Dual Monarchy, the settling of which had been blocked by the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, and which for decades had been the worry and dis- traction of every Government in turn, was at last arranged. For all matters of common concern a coat-of-arms was devised which actually symbolized the constitutional relations of the two halves of the Dual Monarchy. The quartering on the same shield of the arms of Hungary and Austria proclaimed their essential independence, and the name of Austrian Empire was now officially adopted by the cis-Leithan half of the monarchy in place of the style " the Territories represented in the Reichsrat." The escutcheon of the House of Habsburg surmounting the two shields, on the other hand, symbolized the fact that the two states were united, this being still further emphasized by the motto iiulivisibiliter ac inseparabiliter, borrowed from the Pragmatic Sanction. In the same spirit the question of the flag was set- tled. The old black-and-yellow flag of the common army was replaced by an ensign in which white alternated with black and yellow, with red, white and green "flames," and which was fur- ther ornamented with the new arms of the common State sur- mounted by the Imperial crown and the crown of St. Stephen.
A settlement thus seemed to have been effected of all the quarrels which had weakened the monarchy, whether arising out of the internal affairs of Hungary or her relations with Austria. When on Sept. 2 1916 the Hungarian and Croatian municipalities took the oath of allegiance to the Emperor-King at the palace of Schonbrunn, the Ban of Croatia, Baron Sker- lecz, said that this was the day of victory for all the fundamen- tal principles on which the structure of the monarchy rested; and the speeches delivered on this occasion, both by Hungarian and Austrian representatives, gave eloquent expression to the deep sense of essential unity which had been called forth by the danger to the monarchy arising out of the war. In the internal affairs of Hungary, too, the Opposition wished to secure " con- centration " by means of a Coalition Ministry, hoping in this way to avoid a repetition of what it conceived to be mistakes in Hungarian foreign policy. On May 20 1915 Count Apponyi proposed that a Coalition Government should be formed of members of the Opposition and of the actual Cabinet ; that the prime minister should be a member of this Government, but that at its head should be plac%d a statesman whose neutrality should be guaranteed by the fact that he had taken no part in recent party contests. But Tisza was by no means disposed to submit himself to the headsman. He believed himself to be indispensable at the head of affairs in Hungary at a time when the failure to prevent Italy entering the war on the side of the Entente was ascribed to the inexcusable blundering of the Austro- Hungarian Foreign Office. He declared that he could with a clear conscience accept responsibility for whatever influence had been exercised by the Hungarian Government upon foreign affairs. And so the idea of a Coalition came to nothing.
Two months later, on Nov. 21 1916, the long reign of Francis Joseph came to an end. Ever since his coronation, on June 8 1868, as King of Hungary he had never ceased to feel and act as the constitutional ruler of the country, and he had faithfully adhered to the spirit of the Ausgleich of 1867. The gratitude of the nation was expressed in a resolution passed by Parliament on Jan. 22 1917 to erect a fitting memorial to him in Budapest. The collapse of the monarchy in ruins prevented this resolution from being carried out.
Accession of Charles IV. Francis Joseph's successor, who assumed the style of Charles I. as Emperor of Austria and Charles IV. as King of Hungary, was crowned, together with his consort, on Dec. 30 1916, after he had, in accordance with the constitution, signed the " inaugural diploma " guarantee- ing the rights of the nation. This ceremony, which under the Hungarian constitution was the indispensable condition prec- edent to the exercise by the King of any of his powers, was
heralded by violent scenes in Parliament. The kings of Hungary were crowned by the primate and by a " vice-palatine " elected ad hoc by the Parliament. Count Tisza was ambitious of fulfill- ing the latter function and was duly elected by the parliamen- tary majority, while the opposition, under Andrassy's leader- ship, put forward the Archduke Joseph. To have thus put him- self into opposition to the Archduke, who was not only popular but reverenced as a prince of the Hungarian royal house, was a mistake on the part of Tisza. It gave his opponents an oppor- tunity of impressing upon the young sovereign that Tisza's violence would not always be content with shoving an Arch-- duke aside. Equally strong was the impression made upon the royal couple, whose opinions were strongly clerical, by the sug- gestion that Tisza's behaviour was characteristic of the arro- gance of this Calvinist, who presumed to crown the Apostolic King. As constitutional monarch Charles had to confirm the election of Tisza as vice-palatine, but it can safely be affirmed that this episode still more firmly rooted the dislike with which, as a Calvinist, he was already regarded at court.
At this time the negotiations for the economic Ausgleich between Austria and Hungary once more reached an acute stage. According to Article 25 of the treaty these negotiations for a new agreement, to cover the period from Jan. i 1918, should have begun not later than the commencement of 1915, but it was not till Sept. 26 1915 that the two Governments took the matter in hand. As there was also a possibility of a tariff arrangement with Germany, wide support was given in 1917 to the idea of concluding an Ausgleich between the two halves of the monarchy which should cover a considerable period, say 20 or 25 years. It was thought that this would give a strong basis for the negotiations with the German Empire, and that it would save Austria-Hungary from the violent quarrels about the Ausgleich, which recurred every 10 years, and often produced abroad the false impression that the monarchy was falling to pieces. There never was a new Ausgleich, however, the last being that of 1907.
The Opposition in Parliament shared the strong dislike of the court for Count Tisza. On Feb. 26 1917 his motion for bestow- ing extraordinary powers on the Government for the duration of the war was opposed by Count Julius Andrassy, who saw in this an attempt on the part of the Cabinet to subject the whole country to the discipline of a single party, and denounced the imperialism of the Party of Work, which was extending even to Austria, where great bitterness was being aroused owing to the refusal of Hungary to supply food-stuffs. The interests of Hungary, Andrassy insisted, demanded a strong Austria along- side of a strong Hungary. In spite of this opposition, however, extraordinary powers were voted to the Government on March 23 by a majority of 93 to 63. On April 13 Tisza delivered a bitter attack on the Opposition, whose demand for a Coalition Government he denounced as a mere party cry, and whose object he declared to be not " concentration " but disorganization. On the following day the breach was complete. Tisza attempted to strengthen his Cabinet by inviting two members of Andrassy's Constitutional party to join it, but after consultation with their leaders they refused. Neither this attempt, nor an autograph letter of April 28 in which the King assured him of his confidence, could avert his fall distrust of him at court was too deep- rooted. The immediate cause of his fall was the demand of King Charles that every holder of the military cross named after him (Karl-Truppen-Kreuz) , i.e. every soldier who had actually served at the front, should be given the vote. On Tisza's refusal to agree to a policy in contradiction with that outlined in the autograph letter of April 28, he received his dismissal (May 23 1917).
Esterhazy and Wekerle Cabinets. The proper thing to have done now would have been to have entrusted the formation of a Government to Count Andrassy, as the most conspicuous mem- ber of an Opposition which rested on the principles of 1867. Charles, however, thought it advisable to employ young blood in inaugurating the policy which he believed to be necessary in view of the tendencies of the times, and on June 1 5 he placed the
