czech peasantry in 1848 - de gruyter

Czech Peasantry in 1848

STANLEY Z. PECH

I

For the peasantry in the Czech Lands 1 the year 1848 was a historic one: it witnessed the abolition of the last vestiges of serfdom in Austria, with the Czech (and, of course, also German) peasants sharing in the 1 For an overall treatment of the year 1848 in the Czech Lands, see: K. Kaz-bunda, Ceske hnuti roku 1848 (Prague, 1929); F. Roubik, Cesky rok 1848 (Prague, 1931), reprinted in 1948; I. I. Udalzow, Aufzeichnungen über die Ge-schichte des nationalen u. politischen Kampfes in Böhmen im Jahre 1848, transl. from the Russian (Berlin, 1953); J. J. Touzimsky, Na üsvite nove doby (Prague, 1898); A. Klima, Rok 1848 v Cechdch (Prague, 1948); J. Macürek, Rok 1848 a Morava (Brno, 1948); Z. Tobolka, Politicke dejiny ceskoslovenskeho ndroda, I (Prague, 1932).

Sources: J. M. Cerny, ed., Boj za prdvo, Pt. 1 and 2 (Prague, 1893); F. J. Schopf, ed., Wahre u. ausführliche Darstellung der am 11. März . . . begonnenen Volks-Bewegung, 6 parts (Leitmeritz, 1848); F. Roubik, ed., Petice venkovskeho lidu z Cech k Narodnimu vyboru z roku 1848 (Prague, 1954); J. Radimsky and M. Wurmovä, eds., Petice moravskeho lidu k snemu z roku 1848 (Prague, 1955); Verhandlungen d. österr. Reichstages nach der stenographischen Auf-nahme, 5 vols. (Vienna, 1848-49).

The leading non-official contemporary newspapers: Ndrodni noviny, first is-sue, April 5, 1848; Prazsky vecerni list, first issue, June 1, 1848; Constitutionel-les Blatt aus Böhmen, first issue, April 2, 1848; Bohemia, originated in pre-1848 era.

The following works deal wholly or in part with the Peasant Question: K. Grünberg, Die Bauernbefreiung ... in Böhmen, Mähren u. Schlesien, (Leipzig), Vol. I (1894), II (1893); F. Roubik, "Na ceskem venkove roku 1848", Casopis pro dejiny venkova (hereafter CDV), Vol. XV (1928), pp. 161-231; Roubik, "K vyvazeni gruntu v Cechach v letech 1848-1853", Sbornik archivnich praci IX/2 (1959), pp. 160-219; A. Klima, "Ein Beitrag zur Agrarfrage in d. Revolu-tion von 1848 in Böhmen", Studien zur Geschichte d. öst.-ung. Monarchie, Budapest, 1961, pp. 15-26; J. Koci, "Prispevek k rolnicke otäzce v Cechäch v r. 1848," Ceskoslovensky casopis historicky, V (1957), pp. 59-85, 248-66; H. Traub, "Ohlas rijnove revoluce videnske na Morave", Casopis Moravskeho musea zems-keho, XIII (1913), pp. 293-315 and XIV (1914), pp. 97-138, 380-413; B. Sindelär, "O üloze lidovych mas v revoluinim deni roku 1848 na Morave a ve Slezsku", CSCH, IV (1956), pp. 207-31, 388-417; Sindelär, "Ohlas mad'arske revoluce 1848-1849 na Morave a ve Slezsku", Rozpravy Ceskosl. akademie ved, Series on Social Sciences, Vol. 67 (1957), Fase. 3, 98 pages; V. Cerny, "Jednäni

Czech Peasantry in 1848 1275

benefits arising from this measure. The abolition of serfdom has since been remembered as the only concrete accomplishment of the revolu-tionary era. However, beyond mentioning the bare fact of the abolition of serfdom, English-language historiography has paid remarkably little attention to the complex of questions relating to the Czech peasantry in 1848. Very little, if anything, has been said concerning: the lively and, at times, bitter dialogue engendered in the Czech community by the Peasant Question; the attitude of the various opinion groups toward the peasantry and its problems; the manner in which serfdom was abolished; the state of mind of the peasantry; the landless peasant and the agri-cultural worker. Behind the Decree of September 7 - providing for the termination of serfdom - lay a multitude of fears generated by the past and hopes entertained for the future. A close study of the contemporary press and other contemporary sources will recapture these sentiments and the issues as they unfolded during that critical year, when, for the first time in Czech history, such sentiments could be openly expressed and such issues meaningfully discussed. The importance of the subject hardly needs emphasis: the peasantry in Bohemia and Moravia (with Silesia) was in 1848 by far the largest social group, comprising an overwhelming majority of the population. No social issue in 1848 was of greater moment for the stability of the nation than the agrarian issue.

Leaving aside earlier legislation, the first fundamental step on the road to emancipation of the peasantry was taken by Emperor Joseph II, with his now famous Decree of November 1, 1781, restoring to the peasant his freedom of movement.2 Henceforth, the peasant could leave the domain of his lord, move to the city, learn a trade, pursue higher forms of education, and contract matrimonial arrangements - all with-

riSskeho snemu r. 1848 o zruseni poddanstvi", CDV, XV (1928), pp. 232-49; F. A. Slavik, "Zruäeni roboty na Morave roku 1848", Casopis Matice moravske, XXII (1898), pp. 261-70, 337-44; K. Krofta, Dejiny selskeho stavu, 2nd ed., Prague, 1949; J. Blum, Noble Landowners and Agriculture in Austria, 1815-1848 (Baltimore, 1948); E. M. Link, The Emancipation of the Austrian Peasant, 1740-1798 (New York, 1949).

Other relevant works: K. Hugelmann, Die österreichische Landtage im Jahre 1848, Vol. III, in Archiv für österreichische Geschichte CXV/1 (1940); J. Dvorak, Moravske snemovdni roku 1848-49 (Tele, 1898); P. Burian, Die Na-tionalitäten in "Cisleithanien" and das Wahlrecht der Märzrevolution 1848/49 (Graz, 1962).

An indispensable collection for the study of the peasantry is the Casopis pro dejiny venkova, Vol. 1-28 (Prague, 1914-41); Vol. 1-6 under the title, Agrdrni archiv. Of some relevance also is the periodical, Cesky lid, Vol. 1 (Prague, 1891); still being published. 2 Text in Czech and German in Archiv cesky, XXV, pp. 25-28.

1276 Stanley Z.Pech

out permission from his lord. The above Decree, which applied to Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia, had thus wiped out many restrictions that made up the complex of social relationships usually known as serf-dom. The decision to issue the fiat was hastened by a peasant rebellion that had taken place in Bohemia in 1775 - the greatest in the history of that province.

In a decade marked by the most prodigious reform effort in the history of the Czech Lands, Joseph issued a number of other decrees relating to the peasantry, the objectives of which were: to circumscribe the power of the lords over their subjects; to bring the subjects into more direct contact with the central government; and to extend the rights of the peasant to his holding. Of course, certain ingredients of serfdom survived Joseph's reign: the peasant continued to render to his lord a number of services and payments, in kind labour, and money: and those peasants who had not left their land - and they were a large majority - continued to be the legal subjects of their lords, who exer-cised over them patrimonial jurisdiction, albeit substantially reduced as a result of the reform legislation.3 Nevertheless, there is no gainsaying the significance of Joseph's reforms. The dependence of the peasant upon his lord had been loosened to a considerable extent. The decree concerning freedom of movement made it possible for the peasant to go to the city, thus nourishing the growth of cities and of industry. Since the cities were either predominantly German or, at least, governed by the German element, and since, conversely, the majority of the rural population was Czech, the migration from rural to urban areas had the effect of altering the ethnic balance in the cities in favour of the Czechs, with the consequent growth of a Czech intelligentsia and a Czech na-tional movement. Of course, the effect was not to be felt for some time, since for some decades the flow of the rural population into the cities was very limited.

No further substantial improvement took place during the years fol-lowing Joseph's reign. Some attempts in this direction were made by Joseph's successors, but none attacked the problem in a decisive manner. Steeped in a morass of bureaucratic procedures; loath to intro-

3 Emperor Joseph also abolished the labour services (and commuted them into money payments), and introduced a major tax reform (calculated to equalize the tax burden), both through legislation issued on February 10, 1789 (text in AC, XXV, 186 ff); but the nobility objected strenuously to both measures and they were repealed by his successor, Leopold II. For a background of Joseph's reforms, see W. E. Wright, "The Initiation of Robota Abolition in Bohemia", Journal of Central European Affairs, XVIII (1958), pp. 239-53.


duce any changes as long as there was the faintest glimmer of hope that the cumbersome and outdated social edifice could survive without change, the court circles and government authorities followed a strategy of delay which, in retrospect, can only be viewed as an invitation to disaster and revolution. Not even the terrible uprising of Galician peasants in 1846, which sent shudders of horror through the higher strata of the population, could shake the authorities out of their lethargy sufficiently to make them introduce more than token or highly in-effective measures for improvement. Bureaucratic exercises, procrastina-tions, and half-measures continued to be the order of the day, with the result that by the beginning of 1848, a final solution of the Peasant Question was nowhere in sight, and an exasperated peasantry was in the throes of serious unrest. Their dissatisfaction was reinforced by an economic deterioration resulting from a series of crop failures that oc-curred during the forties, culminating in the catastrophic potato blight of 1847 which reduced the potato harvest in some regions by fifty percent or more.4

Traditionally, the obligation most hated by the peasant was the labour service (the Czech term for this service is robota, the German modifica-tion thereof is robot) which cut deeply into the time required by the peasant to cultivate his holding. Though the most hated of all obliga-tions, the robot was not the most widespread; by 1848, it had been commuted, it seems, to money payments in most of the estates in Mora-via; it was somewhat more widespread in Bohemia.5 Besides the robot, there was a variety of payments, in money and in kind, not counting payments and obligations to the state and to the church. This simple statement, however, conceals a truly bewildering maze of feudal obliga-tions, some written down, others only sanctified by custom. The obliga-tions varied not only from province to province, but also from district to district and were frequently not uniform even within a village. A complete catalogue, if one could be drawn up, would list literally

4 See, for instance, the appeal from a village in Northern Bohemia to a regional office of the provincial government for relief funds. The appeal opens thus: "The potato blight has, as is well known, deprived the mountain popula-tion of more than half of the potatoes . . ."; text in Nase ndrodni minulost v dokumentech, II (Prague, 1962), pp. 299-300. 5 There is no systematic and detailed study of the extent of various peasant obligations at this time. As for the robot specifically, Griinberg, Bauernbefreiung, I, p. 368, holds that is was "by far the most prevalent rule till 1848". By contrast, some writers claim that, in Moravia at least, the robot survived in a minority of cases; see, for instance, Radimsky and Wurmova, Petice moravskeho lidu, pp. 8-9.

1278 Stanley Z. Pech

hundreds of different types of obligations throughout Bohemia and Moravia. The rationale for these obligations was that they compensated the lord for permitting the peasant the use of land; for performing ad-ministrative and judicial functions for his subjects; and for the protec-tion he offered his subjects. Unfortunately, what the peasant chiefly needed by 1848 was protection against, not by, the lord; his chance of receiving it was still limited, although it had increased as a consequence of the reforms of Joseph and his Empress-Mother Maria Theresa.

The peasant himself was increasingly resentful of his handicapped position vis-à-vis the lord; but in his book of villains, it was the ad-ministrative or economic official of the estate who inspired the bitterest hatred. Officials tended to be high-handed in the performance of their duties, and arbitrary and venal in the bestowal of such few favours as the subject could expect. There certainly were officials who treated their subjects well, but it is equally certain that the majority did not -one of the few generalizations about the Peasant Question that one can confidently make. When addressing the lord or his agent, a subject was expected to swathe his remarks in self-deprecation, and failure to do so was not regarded lightly. In the eighteenth century, it was common for a subject to kneel before an official (as well as the sovereign) and kiss his hand. Impatient with such ritualistic display of servility of one human being before another, Joseph II forbade it by special decree (1787),6 but much of the litany of self-humiliation survived and, indeed, was one of the hallmarks of the pre-1848 régime, scarring social rela-tionships well past the second half of the nineteenth century. As late as August 1848, it was possible for an official to scold a peasant for not addressing him as "gracious lord" (jemnost pane)7 and toward the end of the revolutionary era of 1848/49, the daily press was replete with complaints about officials whose insolence recurred with the reactionary trend after a brief time of freedom.8 Corporal punishment was by no means exceptional; a box on the ear administered to a "recalcitrant" peasant by an arrogant official was among the least painful, if not the least humiliating, of disciplinary measures. Beating with a cane was legally permitted, although, theoretically at least, a decree of 1793 required the approval of a district government official for this form of punishment.9 It is doubtful whether the lords and their agents took this

0 Text in AC XXV, p. 155. 7 Praisky vecerni list, Sept. 9, 1848. 8 See, for instance, Nârodni noviny (April 27, 1849). 9 Text in AC, XXV, p. 350.


restriction very seriously; in any event, no dispensation was required for the less elaborate forms of punishment. It is safe to say that any official bent on applying corporal punishment found himself little hampered by the existing legal barriers in pursuing his objective to his utmost satis-faction.10 The arrogance of such officials was perhaps only exceeded by the servility they themselves exhibited toward the noble.

Just as the majority of officials viewed the peasant with unrelieved contempt, so the latter learned from experience to distrust and discount any information conveyed by the official. After the downfall of abso-lutism in March 1848, the distrust survived undiminished, leading oc-casionally to situations with the ingredients of both tragedy and comedy. For instance, in some regions in Bohemia, the peasants at the beginning of April 1848 had hardly any idea of the revolutionary changes that had overtaken Prague three weeks earlier. The reason was, one observer found, the peasants' refusal to credit news - even good news - as long as its source of such news was official, as happened in these cases.11 In Moravia in the spring of 1848, peasants in some communities refused to take part in elections for the Diet, because the elections were conducted by officials and, at one stage in the procedure, called for the voter's signature; the peasants feared that this was merely a clever trap to obtain their signature on something to be used ultimately against them.12 Their previous experience had led them to expect that.

II

With the downfall of absolutism and the dismissal of Metternich in March 1848, the Peasant Question quickly thrust itself into the fore-front of the revolutionary drama and became the Number One Item on the agenda of public business. Discontent was rife in the countryside and it was recognized - even in the bureaucracy and the governing circles - that prompt action was needed to check the revolutionary tide. Bohemia and Moravia, respectively, passed through somewhat different stages in dealing with the Peasant Question and we will find it con-venient to discuss each province separately.

In Bohemia, the opening stage of the Revolution of 1848 was the Assembly of March 11, 1848, held in St. Vaclav's Baths in Prague. A draft of a petition to be submitted to the Emperor was presented to this

10 For examples, see Roublk, Petice venkovskeho lidu, p. 519. » AW, April 13, 1848. 12 AW, June 6, 1848.


Assembly, containing, among other things, an article calling for an abolition of the subject status of the peasantry, and for the cancellation of the peasants' burdens and obligations, with appropriate compensa-tion.13 The author of the draft was F. A. Brauner, a Czech expert on serfdom - a circumstance itself indicative of the importance attributed to the agrarian problem by the organizers of the Assembly of March 11. The above article, though hardly radical - no radical demand would have issued from Brauner's pen - was apparently still too extreme for the forces that "captured" the Revolutionary Movement after March 11; although the article had been duly endorsed by the Assembly of March 11, the St. Vaclav Committee (later reconstituted as the National Com-mittee), which had been designated by the Assembly to prepare the petition in final form, tampered with it, thereby robbing it of all sub-stance. The new version now called merely for "reform in peasant conditions appropriate to the times" 14 - a substantial retreat, since it was hardly possible to ask for less; the force of this modest demand was further lessened by tacking it, almost like an afterthought, to a series of demands relating to municipal and village self-government. By contrast, the demand in the preliminary version for the abolition of subject status and peasant obligations was stated in the opening sentence of the article in question.

It is a curious commentary on the liberal middle-class leaders re-sponsible for the final version of the March 11 Petition that, with respect to the agrarian problem, they actually asked for less than had the Bohemian nobility. Alarmed at the swelling current of discontent in the villages and fearing the possible consequences of official inertia, a group of Bohemian nobles resident in Prague addressed a hastily prepared petition of their own to the Emperor (March 20, 1848), urging him to deal speedily with the problem of serfdom. "Speed is now an absolute necessity", states the petition; set forth next are ways whereby the obligations of the peasantry might be abolished with provision for compensation.15 The nobles' petition demonstrates the sense of urgency which gripped them as they became increasingly aware of open breaches of discipline among their subjects, including a widespread refusal to perform the robot. Many nobles doubtless appreciated the humane aspects of the emancipation of the peasantry; at the same time, the nobility, as a group, must have recognized that the solution of the

13 Cerny, Boj, p. 14. 14 Ibid., p. 5.

Ibid., p. 31.


Peasant Question could be deferred only at the risk of a major up-heaval. If the Emperor acted quickly, both he and the nobility might retain a measure of control over the course of events and help to shape the final solutions. Furthermore, many nobles felt - this had been dawning upon them for some years - that the robot was no longer economical, no longer satisfied the requirements of sound agricultural management. It is interesting to note that the nobles' petition did not mention the question of the peasants' subject status; but even at that, it went farther than the March 11 Petition in its final form, which could only plead for reforms "appropriate to the times". It may be added that the universal feeling of urgency was shared by the court, and on March 28 an Imperial Decree was issued providing for the cessation of all robot duties within a year of the issuance of the Decree, and not later than March 31, 1849; the extent of compensation was to be determined later.16

The National Committee which emerged from the Assembly of March 11 became a center of political activity in Bohemia and acquired great prestige among the population. The peasant shared this sentiment and the National Committee became to him the incarnation of all his aspirations. Consequently, it was to this Committee that he now turned in his quest for reform. In a movement completely without precedent in the history of the Czech Lands, peasants from all over the province ad-dressed petition after petition to the National Committee, spelling out their grievances and their demands. It is as if the whole countryside had suddenly come alive, after centuries of servitude, to speak in one mighty voice, giving vent to the accumulated fears and hopes of generations. The petitions - the first dated March 27, 1848 - flowed into Prague in a mounting tide halted only by the June Uprising and the subsequent dissolution of the National Committee by the government.17 No less than 580 petitions were received from the villages (sometimes one from a group of villages), not counting those from towns and cities. The text of some of those 580 petitions has since gone astray, but the text of most is extant. The total represented over 1,200 villages in Bohemia -a stunning figure which bespeaks the intensity of feeling among the rural population. Of the 580 petitions, 465 were written in Czech and 115 in German.18 One hundred and fifty-six were from cottagers and landless peasants, a handful from individuals, and the balance from

1S Ibid., p. 53. 17 The petitions were edited by Roubik, as cited. 18 See Roubik, Petice venkovskeho lidu, 511 ff.


peasants-proper. In addition to the 580 rural petitions, there were 89 from towns and cities. Although the petitions are bitterly critical of officialdom, all but a few convey a spirit of loyalty to the throne and high esteem for the new post-March national leaders. The National Committee, faithful to the role in which it had cast itself - that of an advisory body which should not pre-empt the authority of either existing institutions or institutions soon to be created — made no attempt to cope with the avalanche of petitions from the countryside.19 Little was done to exploit the reservoir of good will and respect which was felt by the peasants for the Committee. The petitions were usually an-swered by a form letter indicating that all questions relating to the peasantry would be dealt with at the forthcoming Bohemian Diet, and were then filed ad acta, to be soon forgotten. Today, however, they constitute vital testimony; containing, as they do, valuable data con-cerning the obligations of peasants, they are a source of primary im-portance, still largely untapped, for a systematic study of social and economic conditions in the countryside before 1848.

In Moravia, unlike Bohemia, the Peasant Question came before the Diet. In Bohemia, it was fully expected that the Diet would occupy itself with the Peasant Question, but that body was not permitted to meet at all during the 1848-49 period. In the sister province of Moravia, the Diet was in session for the better part of this period, and devoted much of its attention to this problem. The Moravian Diet, already constituted on the modern representative principle, was convened on May 31, 1848. (The Moravian Diet, in its "estates" form, had met before, from March 31 to May 13, 1848, and had supplied the legal continuity for the representative diet that followed.) Dubbed "Peasant Diet" because its members included a large number of peasant deputies, it boldly tackled the question of serfdom. By June 9, after heated debate, and impelled by the obvious need for speedy action, the Moravian Diet had approved the abolition of robot duties and other obligations, the abolition to be-come effective on July 1, 1848 20 - a significant provision, in that the robot in Moravia was being abolished long before the deadline of March 1849 set by the Imperial Decree of March 28. The landlords were to

19 It may be noted that from the ethnic point of view, the National Committee was at first composed of both Czechs and Germans (the former naturally in a majority as befitted a majority nationality), but as national animosities were intensified, the Germans withdrew. 20 Hugelmann, Die osterr. Landtage, III, 181 ff. The provision did not apply to Silesia, where a separate Diet had come into being.


receive compensation, but the question of compensation was to be the subject of separate legislation.

Peasant petitions in Bohemia had their counterpart in Moravia, with some obvious differences arising from dissimilar circumstances. There was no "National Committee" in Brno, but there was a Diet, and it became the recipient of the peasants' pleas for reform and justice.21

Over 550 petitions from rural and urban communities were received; that this is a larger number, in proportion to the population, than in Bohemia, may be explained by the fact that, in Moravia, the petition movement could continue throughout the whole revolutionary period, whereas in Bohemia it was checked by the June Uprising in Prague. Three hundred and six petitions have actually survived in Moravia, the first bearing the date of April 6, 1848, the last, January 25, 1849. One hundred and sixty-four petitions were written in Czech and 142 in Ger-man. Most were from peasant communities, some from towns and in-dividuals. Like their Bohemian counterparts, they constitute an im-portant source for the study of the peasantry in this period.

Ill

A few weeks after the Moravian Diet had enacted the agrarian legisla-tion, the long-awaited Imperial Parliament (Reichstag) opened in Vienna. It was this Parliament that subjected the Peasant Question to intense scrutiny, engendering a passionate controversy as to precisely how the abolition of robot duties was to be carried out. Parliament opened formally on July 22 (after a few preliminary meetings), and in its third meeting (July 26), Hans Kudlich, the youngest deputy, a Ger-man from Silesia, tabled the well-known resolution calling for the abolition of serfdom. With this proposal, the debate concerning serfdom was opened. No deputy, of course, questioned the principle of the aboli-tion of the subject status of the peasantry. But the emancipation of the peasant population also entailed the cessation of robot duties and other obligations and payments to the lord, in money or kind, and the acquisi-tion by the peasant of the right of ownership, unencumbered by any restrictions, to the land he had cultivated. Some deputies insisted that the lord should receive some compensation for such duties and obliga-tions as had not been imposed upon the peasant by virtue of his subject status.

In the next few weeks, the term "compensation" became something 21 For the edition of Moravian petitions, see Radimsky and Wurmovâ, as cited.


of a shibboleth identifying the partisans in the violent controversy which unfolded: depending on one's point of view, the cry was "abolition for compensation" or "abolition without compensation". Those opposing compensation were radicals or radical democrats of whatever national-ity; those favouring compensation were conservatives and liberals. The controversy echoed throughout all of Cisleithania, including the Czech Lands. Among the Czechs, the dominant political group was the liberals, boasting a galaxy of such names as Palacky, Havlicek, Rieger, and Brauner. Their newspaper voice was the Närodni noviny, edited by Karel Havlicek; it was the most ably edited of Czech newspapers in 1848-49 and the first great newspaper in the history of Czech jour-nalism. The liberals, like Närodni noviny, were strongly in favour of compensation. Opposed to compensation were the radicals, recruited largely from among the litterati, Prague university students, and intellec-tuals in general. Their principal organ was the Prazsky vecerni list, edited by J. S. Knedlhans-Liblinsky. Among the Czechs in Moravia, there was no significantly large radical group; the liberal group, led by such men as Oheral and Sembera, by and large took the same point of view in this case as their liberal kin in Bohemia.

In the Czech parliamentary group in Vienna, the liberals pre-dominated decisively in both number and quality of deputies; all the well-known names were liberals including the four just mentioned. Most of the Czech deputies favoured compensation, their most prominent spokesman being F. A. Brauner, one of the leading experts in the Habs-burg Monarchy on the peasant problem. Brauner had made his name in this field before 1848, his reputation based particularly on the treatise, Böhmische Bauernzustände im Interesse der Landeskultur und des Nationalwohlstandes besprochen, published in 1847 in Vienna. In this and other published works, he showed himself an advocate of the aboli-tion of serfdom and, at the same time, a proponent of compensation.22

He was highly esteemed by peasants, who viewed him as their friend and principal spokesman. It was Brauner who delivered in Parliament the main speech from the Czech side during the debate on serfdom. Faithful to his principles, he supported the idea of compensation in this speech (August 23, 1848),23 buttressing his plea with the oft-repeated argument that to deny compensation merely because one did not like the surviving relics of the feudal era would constitute an aban-

22 V. Kral, "F. A. Brauner za revoluce a reakce 1848-1849", Sbornik archivnich praci, I I / l (1952), pp. 123-90. 83 Verhandlungen des österr. Reichstages, II, pp. 4-8.


donment of the grounds of legality and a violation of the rights of property. It may be added that the views of Brauner and the like-minded deputies paralleled the views of the Austrian government and the im-perial court; the government stood firmly behind compensation and made it clear that it stood or fell with this principle.

The opponents of compensation argued, not without plausibility, that the abolition of serfdom did no more than redress the injustice of cen-turies, and that this injustice should not now be sanctified by rewarding its perpetrators with compensation. One of the most impassioned pleas in support of this view came from the Galician peasant deputy, Ka-puszczak. He related how, in his own province, a peasant was always obliged to remove his hat 300 steps from the residence of the noble, and how he was not permitted to enter the residence of the noble be-cause he "stank" and because he was dirty. "For such mistreatment", Kapuszczak asked, "we should now give compensation?" 24 It is also pertinent to observe that, for centuries, it was the peasant in his im-poverished condition, not the nobleman, who had to bear the brunt of taxation; the nobles were subject only to certain extraordinary taxes, not to the regular ones.

The question finally came to a vote on August 31. "Moderate com-pensation" received the endorsement of the majority, with 174 deputies for, 144 against, and 36 abstaining.25 Of the total of 78 deputies in Parliament who can be identified as Czech-speaking, 53 voted for com-pensation, 14 against, and 11 abstained.26 Among those voting for compensation were most of the leaders of the Czech national move-ment, including Palacky, Havlicek, Rieger, and Trojan, to name the best known. Curiously, Brauner himself abstained; perhaps he felt that his renown as the tribune of peasants rendered it impossible for him, when the chips were down, to cast his ballot in a publicly recorded vote for compensation - a vote that could be regarded as one against the peasants. It was one thing to argue in favour of compensation in a learned treatise, or even in a sophisticated speech on the floor of Parlia-ment. It was quite another for such a tribune to maintain his stance, in full view of the public, when the issue had passed from the realm of academic discussion into that of political action - or, to put it more bluntly, when the issue had descended to a bread-and-butter level where

24 Ibid., I, j. 586. 25 For a complete list of names of deputies, with an indication of how each voted, see Ibid., II, pp. 163-4. 26 Prehled ceskosl. dejin, I I / l (Prague, 1960), p. 66.


even the most unsophisticated peasant could read the meaning of Brauner's vote. It is highly probable that in a voting by balls (a system sometimes employed by the Imperial Parliament), Brauner would have had his vote follow his heart and cast a ballot in favour of compensa-tion. It was, nevertheless, a remarkable display of inconsistency for him not to honour, in a concrete instance, the principle upon which he had expatiated only a week earlier in the same assembly. It is not without interest that with his abstention, Brauner placed himself in a category the majority of which comprised deputies from Bohemia and Moravia, both Czech and German. Of all thirty-six deputies abstaining, fully two-thirds (twenty-four) were Czech and German deputies from Bohe-mia and Moravia (eleven of these, as noted, Czech). Whatever the reason, Bohemian and Moravian deputies made themselves conspicuous as the largest group that declined to take a stand - a performance that occasioned caustic comment at the time.27

The attitude of the Czech deputies toward compensation has excited much speculation concerning their motivation. One reason for their stand was the rigid, legalistic outlook, instilled, no doubt, by the presence of a large number of lawyers in their midst. A law degree, or at least some legal training, was required for many bureaucratic posts, even those in lower echelons - a situation prevailing throughout Central Europe until the present century. The Czech national movement and, indeed, the whole liberal movement throughout Central Europe in 1848 was top-heavy with lawyers. Their legal "bias" made it easy for Czech leaders to convince themselves that the vote for compensation was a vote for the preservation of law. Another reason was the fact that the Austrian government had inflated the issue into one of the survival of the cabinet. Throughout most of 1848, Czech leaders, in the hope of wresting concessions from the government, committed themselves to support of the government through thick and thin, and their vote on compensation was probably influenced by this consideration. A third reason has recently been suggested by the Czech historian, Koci.28 He has brought out the fact that in 1848, a number of cities were land-owning corporations, and, in addition, a number of estates were individ-ually owned by members of the middle class. It is estimated that over 200,000 peasants had "middle class" landlords. In all such cases, the burghers stood to gain, individually or collectively, from compensation,

27 A. Springer, Geschichte Österreichs, II (Leipzig, 1865), p. 426. 28 In Koci, "Prispevek k rolnicke otäzce", pp. 250-51.


and this could not have failed to influence their vote in the Imperial Parliament.

Amid arguments for and against compensation, it is pertinent to ask: How did the peasant himself view the question? It is a matter of record that, of the hundreds of petitions addressed to the National Committee in Prague, only seven are explicitly opposed to compensation.29 In Moravia, only one petition belongs in this category.30 On the face of it, this might seem to have shown an indifference on the part of the peasantry to the state of their pocketbooks. Their attitude can be ex-plained, in part, by the fact that what mattered most to the peasant was the immediate termination of all obligations and ties of dependence vis-à-vis the landlord; in this context, the question of compensation was a technicality the importance of which remained in the background. It is also possible that, at the time the petitions were being drawn up, the peasantry had not yet really had the opportunity to hear arguments against compensation, and thus the idea that the emancipation might be effected without it had not yet been seriously considered. One may further conjecture that the petitions were drawn up or influenced by the more "substantial" elements of the rural community, who tended to eschew the radicalism implicit in the abolition of serfdom without com-pensation. Also, a number of peasants, especially the more prosperous ones, accepted the need for compensation on the ground that taking liberties with landed property was a dangerous precedent which might some day be used against them - for instance, when the landless peasants should demand land from the more affluent peasants, and that without compensation. It will be noted later that this was not a groundless fear, for the poorest members of village populations here and there did complain later that the peasants had plenty of land and also controlled the village common, while they themselves had nothing. Finally, it may be added that the bill, as finally approved by Parliament on September 7 and promulgated into law, bearing the same date, by the Emperor, exempted from any compensation the poorest peasants, i.e., those with less than a given amount of land, or with no land at all; this reduced substantially the potential of discontent.

What was the attitude of peasant deputies in Parliament in Vienna? Here the answer is quite unequivocal: They were opposed to com-pensation. In the crucial vote of August 31, by far the majority of the peasant deputies voted against compensation. This group included 29 Roubik, "K vyvazeni gruntu", p. 164. 3U Radimsky and Wurmovâ, Petice moravského lidu, p. 15.


eleven of the fifteen peasant deputies from Bohemia and Moravia (with Silesia); of the remaining four, three abstained and only one voted for compensation. More significantly, of the thirty peasant deputies from Galicia actually casting vote, every single one was opposed; there was not even a single abstention. The attitude of the Galician peasants was of particular moment, since they constituted the largest peasant bloc in Parliament.31 This suggests that the Czech deputies, to the extent that they represented peasant communities, as most of them did, and that they did not vote for compensation, as most of them did not, failed to represent the wishes of their constituents.32 Indeed, had the Imperial Parliament as a whole been responsive to the sentiments of the peasant-ry - which was a large majority of the population - it would, from all evidence, have had to vote against compensation.

It was precisely the burden of the argument of the Czech radicals at home that the Czech parliamentary delegation had betrayed the interests of peasants; something may now be said about the role of the radicals during the compensation controversy in 1848-49. The radical democrats were not well represented in the Czech parliamentary delegation. The majority of Czech delegates were liberals; the few radical democrats did not even approach the caliber of such liberal delegates as Rieger, Palacky, and others, and they exerted no appreciable force upon the work of Parliament. (This is emphatically not true of Polish and Vien-nese radical deputies.) The best-known of the Czech radical democratic parliamentarians was Frantisek Havlicek (no relation to Karel Havli-cek), a one-time repealist and an active member of the radical demo-cratic movement during 1848-49, but his contributions in Vienna were modest.

Czech radicals may not have shone in Vienna, but they made them-selves notably conspicuous at home, chiefly in Prague, where they con-trolled a few radical newspapers, the most popular of which was, as al-ready noted, the Prazsky vecerni list. This newspaper took an un-faltering stand against any form of compensation and chided the dele-gates in Vienna for voting in its favour. When the Czech deputy, Trojan, made a speech in Parliament in defense of compensation, implying that

31 For a list of deputies by provinces and occupations, see AW, January 26, 1849; this should be matched against the recorded vote, as given in Verhand-lungen d. osterr. Reichstages, II, pp. 163-4. 32 I was unable to learn the exact pattern of peasant voting on this issue in the Moravian Diet in June 1848. It may be assumed, however, that the peasant deputies in Brno (some of whom made speeches in the Diet against compensa-tion) voted in much the same manner as their counterparts in Vienna.


his views were those of the public, Prazsky vecerni list took him to task for such presumption, stating that the nation "would certainly, in large majority, vote that no compensation be given for the centuries-old oppression of the peasants by the lords".33 The same newspaper had noted a few days earlier (August 15, 1848) that "the majority of Czech deputies are in favour of compensation, and, with somewhat excessive anxiety, view the abolition of the robot without compensation as an ap-proach to communism. . . . Our conviction is . . . that the robot duties, and burdens arising out of the subject status should be abolished with-out compensation"; to ensure that the reader would not miss the signifi-cance of the last sentence, it was printed in thick type. But the radicals could not prevail against the liberals, who had on their side the com-bined weight of intellect and prestige; there was never any doubt as to the stand that most Czech parliamentarians would take. Many years later, J. V. Fric, one of the radicals of the 1848-49 era, charged the Czech deputies with "having solved, in the interests of the nobility and not of the people, the most delicate and serious question for which Parliament had been actually summoned".34

By contrast, Havlicek's Narodni noviny editorially supported com-pensation throughout the controversy. From the very beginning, it de-voted much attention to the Peasant Question, its main objectives being to educate the Czech peasant after centuries of neglect and to acquaint him with his new rights and privileges. It sought to instill into him a sense of pride in his newly-won status as a free man. As for compensa-tion, it published a good deal in its favor. As one might expect, it pub-lished in toto Brauner's speech of August 23 in Parliament.35 Its report on the crucial vote of August 31 did not even hint that most peasant deputies from Bohemia and other provinces had voted against com-pensation; indeed, whether by design or by accident, most newspapers, Czech and German, neglected to call this important fact to the atten-tion of their readers.36 After the promulgation of the Decree of Sep-tember 7, Narodni noviny published a long letter from an unsigned Czech deputy, summarizing the significance of the new legislation and stressing that certain burdens "could not be abolished without com-pensation because justice must be the first rule of the Imperial Parlia-ment" and compensation would in any event be so "moderate" and 33 PVL, August 15, 1848. 34 J. V. Fri£, Pameti, II (Prague, 1960), p. 268. 35 NN, August 28, 1848. 36 Even PVL failed to point this out in its coverage of the vote, in the issue for September 3, 1848.


"facilitated by the state that no-one need fear it".37 Its longest exposi-tion on compensation, two full octavo pages of small print, appeared on September 14, 1848, from the pen of one K. Tomicek, lawyer and deputy from the district of Jilemnice. It seems that some of Tomicek's peasant constituents had addressed to him a petition, demanding, among other things, that no compensation be paid to the landlords. Ndrodni noviny elected not to publish the petition, but only the two-page rebut-tal, which presented once again the whole argument for compensation, condemning the opposite stand as a "denial of law". Another reassuring explanation in the same vein, from the pen of another Czech deputy, followed on September 21, evidently spurred by some manifestations of discontent among his constituents.

The manner in which Narodni noviny covered the lengthy debates invited criticism from Prazsky vecerni list. The latter accused Ndrodni noviny of having omitted from its account of parliamentary debates two speeches against compensation made on the floor of Parliament.38

Havlicek countered39 that the point of view expressed in the two speeches had already been presented in earlier speeches (especially those by Kudlich), duly reported in Ndrodni noviny. This was the first major radical-liberal polemic of a political nature in the Czech-language press since the downfall of absolutism in March, and it arose, appro-priately, over the Peasant Question - the most vital to the life of the nation at the time.

Though Havlicek was not above withholding news from his readers, even important news concerning radical activity,40 the censure by Prazsky vecerni list was not deserved in this case. Ndrodni noviny re-ported at length the pro-compensation speech (August 14, 1848) of deputy Schneider41 and, on the whole, gave adequate coverage to other such speeches. It also published a letter against compensation by a Czech peasant which ended with the flat statement: "I am against any compensation for the robot which cannot be effected without hurting the peasant." 42 That Ndrodni noviny gave much greater coverage to the viewpoint it favoured stands to reason, and in doing so it hardly 37 NN, Sept. 10, 1848. 38 PVL, August 14, 1848. 39 NN, August 20, 1848. 40 One of the more serious omissions of this kind was the failure of NN to make any mention of a mass radical meeting that took place in Prague on May 29, 1848. The meeting is described in Schopf, Wahre und ausführliche Darstel-lung, IV, p. 27. 41 NN, August 18, 1848. 42 Ibid.


acted in a manner different from other newspapers, whether radical, liberal, or conservative.43

IV

When speaking of the rural population in the Czech Lands in 1848, it is usual and convenient to use the term "peasantry". However, the term conceals important differences within the peasant class. It en-compasses: a) peasants with a medium or large holding of land; b) peasants with only a minute holding or no holding whatever except a house [cottagers]; and c) peasants without any house or land, farm domestics, and seasonal agricultural workers. The peasants included in b) and c) may be regarded as landless peasants. The Revolution of 1848 effected not only a full emancipation of the peasantry as a whole, but brought in its wake the first stirrings of the landless peasantry, particularly cottagers. The influence of cottagers was still limited as a political force, but their numbers were large enough to compel atten-tion and cause the more prosperous peasants to feel uneasy at the prospect of this landless army growing and menacing their security. In 1848, the landless peasants already encompassed a large segment of the rural population, their numbers in some regions exceeding those of landed peasants. One of the most remarkable documents shedding light on this question is a report (April 22, 1848) by an official of a landed estate in Western Bohemia which is preserved in the files of the Na-tional Committee.

This official sought to draw the attention of the authorities to the existence of "landless proletarians" (ländliche Proletarier) who "[there-fore] view the impending benefits to the peasant with jealousy because they had been hitherto highly dependent upon him [and] oppressed by him".44 According to the report, the number of "agricultural proletar-43 PVL had its own questionable record of having tailored news to fit its policies. The most flagrant occasion was the "disclosure" of names of people who had allegedly signed a petition of July 15, 1848, asking General Windisch-grätz to continue the state of siege imposed upon Prague after the June Uprising. The document was regarded as one of the most infamous products of reaction; its text was published, but the names of signatories withheld. PVL now under-took to fill the void by publishing (July 26, 1848) what purported to be a list of signatories. A number of those on the list apparently had nothing to do with the petition and PVL was compelled, in the next few days, to publish numerous letters from individuals denying any connection with the petition; see, for instance, PVL, July 27, 28 (Supplement), 29 and the issues immediately following. 44 Roubik, Petice venkovskeho lidu, p. 75.


ians" in the region in question "is far greater than that of the peas-ants".45 A cottagers' petition to the National Committee (from Eastern Bohemia) offers detailed statistics on the situation in their region and concludes that the number of landless peasants there is three times as large as the number of landed peasants.46 In Moravia the problem ap-pears to have been less acute, and it is probable that in Bohemia and Moravia as a whole the landed peasants still held an edge from the point of view of numbers. The number of cottagers' petitions to the National Committee is 156, of a total of 580. In Moravia their number is marked-ly smaller - only 23 out of 306 - an indication that the number of landless peasants in Moravia was much smaller than in Bohemia and their social consciousness less developed.

Whatever the respective proportions of cottagers and peasants, the number of the former was unquestionably large - and growing. The peasants felt uncomfortable in the face of such a multitude, and fearful to the point where, in some regions, they questioned the wisdom of bestowing upon cottagers the right to vote. According to Brauner, "many people, especially peasants, complain that even the tax-paying cottagers enjoy the right to vote; since their numbers in many places exceed that of landed peasants, they will have more votes and will out-vote the peasants".47 On the eve of the election for the Bohemian Diet, Narodru noviny reported that many candidates were collecting votes from the "little people who also have a right to vote" and that this caused the peasants to fear that they would be "outvoted by cottagers" and "will not find defenders for their concerns in the Diet".48 In other words, no sooner did the peasants receive, for the first time in Czech history, the precious right to vote than they sought to exclude the poorer element of the rural population from the exercise of this same privilege. Similarly, the urban middle classes, having been fully en-franchised by the Revolution of 1848, and having assumed direction of that Revolution, lost no time in barring the working class from suffrage.

It was in connection with the cottager problem that the delicate question of distribution of land was raised. In the Czech press, attention to this problem was first drawn (during the 1848-49 period) by Narodni noviny with the publication of a cottagers' petition (from the region of Rakovnik) in which the cottagers asked that they be permitted to ac-

45 Ibid., p. 76. 46 Ibid., p. 181. " NN, June 2, 1848. 48 NN, June 8, 1848.


quire, for permanent tenure, certain types of ecclesiastical land. Havli-cek himself added a postscript recommending such a solution and even extending it by suggesting that the poorest peasants be permitted to purchase such land outright, the payment to be made in installments spread over a long period of time.49 Havlicek's views here coincide perfectly with his avowed anticlericalism, to expressions of which he - a disillusioned ex-seminarist - was only too glad to open his columns.

Havlicek, of course, always thought in terms of compensation, but among the records of 1848, we may also turn up - though rarely -requests for something resembling confiscation of ecclesiastical prop-erty. Among the petitions in Bohemia, only two propose measures which amount to confiscation of ecclesiastical lands. One demands that the land of the Roman Catholic clergy be taken from them and "re-turned permanently to the nation"; the other urges that church property "be recognized as state property".50 A sympathetic and vigorous interest in the cottager problem was maintained by the Slavic Linden (Slovanska Lipa), a Czech cultural and political organization in which the radicals were steadily gaining ground, from starting with the summer of 1848. The Slavic Linden intended to publish a brochure devoted to an analysis of the agrarian problem, but it never appeared.51

The next stage was a demand for the distribution or confiscation of secular property - a demand far too radical even for most radical demo-crats. Only at the end of the revolutionary period did one radical demo-crat, Emanuel Arnold, in his ultra-radical Obcanske noviny (April 26, 1849), hint at the possibility of such an upheaval in property relations. He suggested that "if, for instance, one peasant proprietor had a maxi-mum of 400 korec measures of land [roughly 250 acres], then much land would be separated from individual large landed properties and pass into the hands of small proprietors".52 There is no indication in Arnold's proposal as to how the surplus land would actually pass into the hands of the cottagers. What is novel is that he does not specifically limit his proposal to ecclesiastical property and, by refraining from doing so, implies that secular property would be affected. With this, the question of land distribution may be said to have reached at once its climax and its point of exhaustion. The article - infused with a dema-

49 NN, Sept. 26, 1848. NN attacked the "Peasant Aristocracy" in a scathing indictment on October 21, 1848; this was upheld in an article signed by Havliiek on November 16, 1848. 50 Roubik, Petice venkovskeho lidu, pp. 34, 249. 51 Ko£i, "Prispevek k rolnicke otazce", p. 264. 52 Emanuel Arnold, Sebrane spisy (Prague, 1954), p. 419.


gogue's passion, like many other products of Arnold's pen - failed to elicit any significant response, within or without the peasant class; this, despite the fact that Arnold was the radicals' outstanding "specialist" in the Peasant Question, with wider contacts among the peasantry than any other radical. Political events following the publication of his article dealt a death blow to whatever chances Arnold had of striking a re-sponsive chord among his countrymen: the article appeared on April 26, 1849; a few days later, after the exposure of the May Conspiracy (May 10), the police were spreading a dragnet for Arnold and other radicals, and ultimately he was apprehended and condemned to years in prison and exile.53

V

What role did the peasant himself play in the political events of the year 1848? Emancipation opened new vistas for him and required that he be accommodated within the new constitutional framework instituted after the downfall of absolutism. An emancipated peasant should ob-viously take part, to some degree, in the constitutional process, with the first symbol of such participation being his exercise of the right to vote. In this respect, the peasant fared much better than the urban worker. The latter had been barred, for all intents and purposes, from the suffrage by electoral laws enacted in both Bohemia and Moravia within two months after the downfall of absolutism. The middle classes did not relish the impact of the working class vote upon political insti-tutions, but their attitude towards that other underprivileged group, the peasantry, was of a different order. The peasantry was viewed in a more generous light, as a potentially stabilizing force - that is, once its legitimate demands have been satisfied. As a consequence, the bulk of the peasantry was admitted to the electoral privilege. In Bohemia the relevant measure was the electoral law prepared by the National Com-mittee (May 1848) as a basis upon which the new Bohemian Diet should be elected.54 This law confered suffrage on everyone in rural districts "paying a direct tax" (Art. 38) - a provision applicable to em-bracing the greater part of the rural population, since even many cot-

53 For Arnold, see Z. Samberger, "Emanuel Arnold, radikalni demokrat z roku 1848", Sbornik archivnich praci 1/ (1951), pp. 17-164; J. Ko£i, Emanuel Arnold (Prague, 1964). - Sindelar,"0 uloze lidovych mas", p. 407, alludes to demands of cottagers in Moravia-Silesia for the parcelling out of secular estates, but he is not very specific and I am unable to appraise the evidence. 54 Text in Cerny, Boj, pp. 230-38.


tagers paid such a tax; the agricultural workers, farm domestics, and all other non-tax payers, however, were excluded from suffrage by this provision. In Moravia, the situation was similar. The provisional con-stitution for Moravia adopted by the Moravian Diet (April 27, 1848) was more explicit than the Bohemian document in that it conferred suffrage only on "independent" persons and specifically excluded "farm domestics, paupers, factory workers, journeymen, and apprentices"; on the other hand, all those paying a direct tax had the right to vote.55

Thus, in Moravia, too, most peasants, (including many cottagers) were thus enfranchised. The Moravian constitution approved by the Diet on September 20, 1848, retained the substance of these provisions, but employed different terminology; Article 15 bestowed suffrage on those "owning land, house, or taxable business, or those who have proven their education by the attainment of a public office, academic honour or by passing a state examination".56

The electoral law upon which the Imperial Parliament was based was the subject of sharp disagreement and provoked violent demonstrations in the imperial capital, staged by the radicals and the workers. The Patent of May 8, 1848, valid for all of Cisleithania, excluded from suffrage "workers on daily or weekly pay, servants, and persons drawing support from public welfare agencies".57 This was later modified under radical pressure and, with some ambiguity, "independent" workers were given the right to vote.58 As far as the peasantry was concerned, the majority were enfranchised by this law, as shown by the conspicuous presence of a large group of peasant deputies - some of them illiterate -from Galicia. Only servants and paupers on relief had been barred from franchise, but other categories of rural dwellers, including all cottagers, were entitled to vote, there being no requirement of income or direct taxation. This was an extremely liberal law for the times, much more liberal than the electoral provisions issued by the National Com-mittee in Bohemia and the Provincial Diet in Moravia; the imperial electoral law shows unmistakably the impact of pressure from Viennese radicals.

Not only did the Czech (and German) peasant vote for the first time

55 ibid., p. 154. 56 Dvorak, Moravske snemovani, p. 254. 57 E. Bernatzik, Die österr. Verfassungsgesetze, 2nd ed. (Vienna, 1911), p. 110. 58 The text of this revision, printed in Wiener Zeitung, June 12, 1848, is quoted in Constitutionelles Blatt aus Böhmen, June 23, 1848, Supplement One. Accord-ing to the Vienna correspondent of this Bohemian German newspaper, noone was quite certain of the definition of the term "independent".


in 1848, but he joined, also for the first time, the representatives of other social classes in framing the laws of his province and his Mon-archy. In Bohemia-proper, the opportunity to do so was denied, be-cause the government in Vienna vetoed all the plans so elaborately and enthusiastically undertaken for the meeting of the Bohemian Diet. Nevertheless, in most parts of Bohemia, elections for the Diet were actually carried out, in June 1848. It had originally been expected that the Diet would deal with the question of serfdom, and the rural districts accordingly elected to the Diet a large contingent of peasant deputies. Havlicek himself had appealed to the voters to elect a strong peasant representation.59

In Moravia, the nobility showed itself keenly responsive to the aspirations of the peasantry, mindful no doubt of the dangers inherent in a failure to heed these aspirations. The first Diet of that year - still based on the old "estates" structure - opened on March 30, and on the following day enunciated the principle that the Diet should be broad-ened by the inclusion of representatives of the peasantry (and also of the burghers, who had till then been only meagerly represented). The means of effecting this change was to be studied by a committee. This was a memorable decision, signifying as it did the first breach in the ancient "estates" structure of representation. Proceeding speedily in order not to be overtaken by events, the Diet enshrined the principle of peasant representation in a provisional constitution of April 27 which, in effect, extended suffrage to most of the peasants (see above). On May 13, the "estates" Diet met for the last time, having smoothed the transition and ensured continuity for the new Diet. An election was held on the basis of the provisional constitution of April 27, and a new "modern" Diet was chosen which convened on May 31, 1848, and sat until January of the following year. The new Diet had a heavy peasant representation, presenting a spectacle so striking as to be labelled a "peasant parliament" in popular parlance. It consisted of one chamber; of the total of 247 deputies who had assembled by the end of June, rural communities were represented by 97 deputies of whom a majority were peasants."0

As for elections to the Imperial Parliament, the situation was radi-cally different. It was generally held that Parliament would deal with high-level intricacies of constitutionalism which required a solid back-ground of education. In deference to this, Havlicek now advised the 59 NN (June 27, 1848). For a list of elected deputies, see AW (July 7, 1848).

For a list of Moravian deputies, see NN (July 26, 1848).


nation to send to Vienna a delegation strong in intellect rather than muscle. He did not expect that serfdom would be discussed and his main concern was to have the Czechs represented by men well-versed in constitutional questions, who would be able to resist and outwit the German centralists, whose implacable hostility to the Czechs was only too well known. As Havlicek himself wrote: "Just as we advised you to elect as deputies to our Bohemian Diet mainly peasants and such men as are independent of the landlords . . . so we advise you again sincerely, with regard to the Viennese Parliament, to choose men ca-pable of higher political negotiation and learned in every respect." 61

The fact that the election was indirect precluded further the chance of too many peasants being chosen. When the votes were in, it turned out that the Czechs heeded Havlicek's advice. Bohemia and Moravia sent only 15 peasant deputies to Vienna, out of a combined total of 138.62

The legislation of 1848 had brought the ballot box within the peasant's range of influence. How much inclined was the peasant to go beyond this instrument of popular will and resort to revolution? Was he revolution-prone? Was the countryside, in fact, a vast teeming reservoir of revolutionary sentiment as it is sometimes depicted? 63

The last major peasant rebellion in Bohemia occurred in 1775, and in Moravia a revolt of more limited scope had taken place in 1821, both movements provoked by exactions of heavy robot duties. As a result of Emperor Joseph's measures, the situation improved, but no further substantial ameliorations were effected by his successors, and the revolt in Moravia in 1821 indicates that the countryside was far from peaceful. There was widespread discontent up to the eve of 1848, and the downfall of absolutism in March 1848, by raising the level of expectations, had the effect of nourishing rather than calming dissatis-faction. Peasants were impatient, often refused to perform the custom-ary robot duties without waiting for official action, and in many other ways challenged the authority of their landlords. It is probable that if the authorities, at this juncture, had tried to perpetuate the robot and other conditions of serfdom, they would have provoked a revolution.

« NN (June 27, 1848). 62 For a list of deputies by province and occupation, see NN (January 26, 1849). 63 This is the theme of Sindelar, "O uloze lidovych mas" and "Ohlas mad'arske revoluce". In the latter article, Sindelaf seeks to show, on the basis of archival documents, that toward the end of 1848 and particularly in the first half of 1849, there was a definite revolutionary situation in the countryside and that "people's sympathies attached themselves with such genuineness, dedication and invincible optimism to the Hungarian Revolution", (p. 76.)


However, in midsummer, the acute wave of dissatisfaction began to ebb, as a consequence of several developments. In Moravia, the aboli-tion of robot duties as of July 1, 1848, helped calm the turbulent waters. In Bohemia, the defeat of the June Uprising in Prague and the consequent repressive measures created an atmosphere of shock which reduced revolutionary inclinations. But considerable influence was ex-erted by the Decree of September 7, 1848, which declared the formal abolition, over the Emperor's signature, of the robot and other peasant duties and obligations, thereby putting an end to centuries-old injustice. After this, though new frustrations and suspicions could and would arise again, there was little chance of mass reaction against existing institu-tions or a major revolutionary upheaval among the peasantry. Such effect as any protest peasant movement might have had was further minimized by the ever-growing gap that had opened between the landed and landless peasants.

To say that there was no revolutionary potential in the villages after September 1848 is not to imply that there was perfect serenity and contentment. On the contrary, there were continued manifestations of discontent, fed from several sources. It was borne upon the peasants that the Decree of September 7 had not actually terminated the robot duties as of its date of issue. Then, in Bohemia, the shock of the post-June repression had begun to wear off, and there was a general surge of political and radical activity, exemplified particularly by the growing influence of the Slavic Linden. In Moravia, there were repercussions from the Viennese Revolution, with itinerant radical agitators (mostly German) urging the villages to aid the rebels; in Bohemia, the effect of the Vienna events was minimal. A special situation unfolded in Northern Moravia and Silesia. Adjacent to the Prussian and Polish centers of advanced radicalism, this region was more exposed to radical propaganda; the fact that the Moravian decree on serfdom did not apply to Silesia merely reinforced a mood of grim resentment and bel-ligerence among Silesian peasants. There were also critical food short-ages in Silesia, and many Silesian landlords showed themselves unusual-ly clumsy in dealing with peasants' demands. All this combined to produce a dangerous situation there, with violent and widespread ex-plosions against the landowning class.

The quelling of the Viennese Revolution emboldened the forces of reaction, reaction which was now casting a lengthening shadow over the constitutional landscape. The growth of reaction led to an open clash with Hungary. Military operations against Hungary required fresh


contingents of troops, and these, in turn, could be acquired only by stepped-up recruitments. Systematic recruitment began at the beginning of 1849 and, not surprisingly, ran into occasional resistance from the rural population, which bore the brunt of the recruitment drive. Radical democrats, Czech and German, saw their chance of striking back at the creeping reaction of which the military might of the state was a domi-nant symbol, and encouraged such resistance by distributing "sub-versive" leaflets. But their success was limited. Only in Northeastern Bohemia did any serious resistance take place. Where there was resist-ance, either the peasants were cajoled into compliance or their resent-ment was overcome by the timely arrival of troops in the troubled district. At no time did the authorities lose control of the situation, and certainly at no time did the manifestations of discontent approach any-thing like a revolutionary cataclysm. In a report of March 2, 1849, the Acting Governor of Bohemia, Baron Mecsery, reported the situation on the whole satisfactory.64

However, the authorities were to have no peace; the holocaust of the Revolution had rendered them morbidly apprehensive at the slightest symptoms of disaffection; and when the Emperor disbanded the Impe-rial Parliament (by then, moved from Vienna to Kromeriz) and issued a constitution of his own at the beginning of March 1849, this produced a fresh wave of symptoms of discontent, enough to seriously alarm the police and the authorities. The most striking manifestation of this dis-content was the sentiment, echoed in some places in Moravia and, to a lesser extent, in Bohemia, which conjured up an image of Kossuth as a liberator and prophet of freedom.65 These manifestations were first ob-

64 Roubik, Cesky rok, pp. 384-87, reproduces the text of one of the radical leaflets. •5 This image had no basis in reality. Kossuth was the leader of a movement of "gentry" character, still dominated by the classic traditions of class privilege. The abolition of serfdom in Hungary had left many questions open, particularly with millions of "non-urbarial" peasants still outside the scope of the reform laws. At no time did the Hungarian leadership permit nearly as wide a franchise to the peasantry as the latter enjoyed in Cisleithania before the dissolution of the Imperial Parliament. Moreover, Kossuth and his fellow revolutionaries had little sympathy for the non-Magyar, especially the Slavic, nationalities of Hun-gary; such legislation as his government enacted to placate the nationalities came far too late (July 1849), with the surrender of Vilagos only a few days away. It is also worth noting that the program of the Slovak national leadership of May 10, 1848, is more democratic than any issued by the Magyar leadership. For a systematic exposition of this problem, see W. Felczak, "Siowianie wggierscy wobec sprawy rewolucji i kontrrewolucji w 1848 roku", Przeglad historyczny, IV (1963), pp. 572-91.


served at the beginning of 1849, but the cry of "filjen Kossuth!" (Long Live Kossuth!) became epidemic after the dissolution of the Imperial Parliament and seemed to exert a notably unsettling effect on the police agents. The police also reported an outburst of republican sentiment among certain segments of urban population, especially the young.

Despite these symptoms, there was no critical revolutionary tension in the Czech Lands as a whole in the latter half of 1848 and the first half of 1849, with the sole exception of Silesia. There may have been apparent revolutionary activity but it had no real substance. Such violence as did occur was of a local character, never approaching the dimensions of a nation-wide mass movement. In a year of revolution, the peasantry failed to revolt: In a year when workers and students fought and died on the barricades in Prague, the peasants resisted the lure of revolution.

When the June Uprising was in progress in Prague, student emissaries sought to drum up support for the beleaguered city throughout the countryside, but the response was neither widespread nor determined. In part, this was due to the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the event; more important reasons were the peasant's failure to appreciate what was at stake and his unwillingness to take the risks connected with the enterprise. Little wonder that the radical Arnold reproached the peasants later (with reference to the June Uprising), saying that "you were asked to take up arms, but you paid no heed".66 It is similarly noteworhy, considering the size of the peasant population, that little effective help came from Moravian peasants to Vienna during the October Revolution; indeed, the Viennese Revolution found, pro-portionately speaking, greater support in the cities, including the Ger-man middle class, than in the rural areas; there was no dearth of itiner-ant agitators, but agitation was of no avail where the will was lacking. During the recruitment drive at the beginning of 1849, there was again some resistance, encouraged by the radicals; but considering the enor-mity of the effort - radical leaflets were distributed in virtually all districts of Bohemia - the effect was negligible. Finally, the May Con-spiracy of 1849, the last protest of the radicals against an encroaching absolutism, was expressed largely by intellectuals and some young artisans, with the mass of the peasantry uninvolved; after the Conspiracy had been exposed and the organizers persecuted, there was no rallying of villagers to the support of the unfortunate students. Only a small 69 In a pamphlet (incomplete draft) written sometime in the latter part of June: Arnold, Sebrane spisy, p. 69.


number of peasants were involved in the Conspiracy, still fewer actually apprehended, and fewer still sentenced.67

The expressions of sympathy for Kossuth could hardly be taken as conveying what they appear to convey. First, it is necessary to consider the actual numbers involved. One, two, or three cries of "Eljen Kossuth" were enough to throw the police agent into a panic, but how many peasants did not harbour some sympathy for Kossuth for each one who did? In all likelihood, a great many. Second, some deeper reflection is required to evaluate the pro-Kossuth sentiment. It was a form of protest against the pressures occasioned by the developments of the early months of 1849. There was the recruitment drive; there was (for the Czech peasant) the unfulfilled expectation of being able to use his own native language at all times when in contact with the authorities; there was the lingering concern as to whether the robot would be abolished, after all - a concern nourished by the radicals, who spread word of a false imperial manifesto (in October and Novem-ber 1848) purported to state that constitutional freedoms would be abolished as of November 3, 1848;68 there was the resentment of the more politically conscious peasants at the dissolution of the Imperial Parliament. But it is still a long step from resentment to revolution, no matter how much it is fostered by agitators. Also, it was one thing for a peasant to feel a certain sympathy for Kossuth, somewhat in protest against unpleasant realities; it was quite another to regard Kossuth's cause as his own, and back it up with a readiness to take up arms in its behalf. A peasant who had not rushed to Prague to aid his kinsmen in June, before the Decree of September 7, was not likely to become in-volved in the cause of the remote Kossuth, after that Decree had re-moved his most pressing grievance against the status quo. It was Arnold who distilled the truth out of the raw material of evidence when he wrote in his Memoirs, some years later (referring to the May Con-spiracy): "I did not then want to advise rebellion, since in my view the liberal teachings of a single year were not sufficient to educate a nation only just awakened from a sleep of two and a half centuries toward a vigorous, bloody resistance to the government." 69 In May 1849 the peasant was more likely to bow before an image of the Emperor than

67 H. Traub, Kvetnove spiknuti v Cechach (Prague, 1929), p. 321. 88 Sindelaf, "O tiloze lidovych mas", p. 412.

Arnold, Sebrane spisy, p. 514. The radical PVL similarly complained (March 29, 1849) that "one of the greatest weaknesses of our nation is its blind faith in authority". In a similar vein, PVL (April 25, 1849).


one of Kossuth; and once he obtained a measure of satisfaction - as he had by the Decree of September 7 - he was more apt to become a tool of reaction than of revolution. The history of the Czech peasantry during the next half-century demonstrates how limited the appeal of radical ideologies was in the countryside, despite the problems and poverty besetting large numbers of peasants, especially those with no land.

VI

It is now possible to draw up the peasant's balance sheet of the revolu-tionary era. The significance of the year 1848 for the Czech peasant can hardly be overestimated. In that year, he cast his first ballot; he first sat in a legislative assembly; and he first became the full-fledged owner of his land. After centuries of servitude, he had at last become a free man. Like other citizens, he was henceforth subject to the regular administrative and judicial powers of the state and its agencies, rather than those of the landlord; he had, in fact, become the equal of his lord, at least in the juridical sense of the word. The last vestiges of serfdom had been wiped out, never to be revived; it is significant that even after the dissolution of the Kromefiz Assembly and the reinstate-ment of absolutism, no attempt was made to tamper with the peasant's new status. And whatever its shortcomings, the emancipation had put an end, permanently, to an era of revolutions in the countryside. Al-though there were periods of discontent - at times, of a serious nature -for the next hundred years, there was to be no peasant rebellion.

As the peasant became a free man capable of influencing political decisions, publishers and editors began to compete for his attention: the year 1848 saw the emergence of the first newspapers of opinion in the history of Czech journalism to be specifically and exclusively di-rected toward the peasant. The significance of this is not diminished by the fact that none of the peasant newspapers succeeded permanently and all had to suspend publication after a short time, largely for lack of reader interest. It was clear that, even after emancipation, the peasant was far from ready to avail himself of all the means of influence which emancipation had brought within his reach. The best known of these short-lived newspapers was the Sedlske noviny, edited by J. K. Tyl, which appeared in Prague from April 1, 1849 to July 1, 1849.70 In 70 Now available in J. K. Tyl, Spisy, Vol. XIV (Prague, 1953), ed. by F. •Strejcek and H. Hrzalova.


Moravia, a newspaper of the same name had been launched much earlier (in March 1848), under the editorship of the Czech Moravian patriot, J. Helcelet, but it died with the third issue.71

Not only did the year 1848 bring decisive benefits to the peasant, but also, by emancipating him, it bestowed collective benefits on the Czech nation. The Czechs enjoyed a great numerical preponderance among the lower social classes; with the millions of Czech peasants now drawn into the political process, the Czech element was bound to reclaim its rightful place in its own country. Perhaps without the participants being fully aware of it, the emancipation had sealed the doom of German overlordship in the Czech Lands. Once the inexorable weight of Czech numbers was translated into the arithmetic of political life, nothing could stand in the way of the emancipation of the Czechs as a nation. That emancipation was supported by the expansion of the Czech element in the schools, factories, and cities; they could now become the instru-ments with which the Czechs would, with a growing success exceeded only by their mounting impatience, pursue their national objectives.

It was a task of some magnitude to dispose of all the problems left in the wake of the emancipation legislation; in many ways, the Law of September 7 was a beginning rather than a consummation of the process. The law itself left many details of enforcement to further legislation. Such details were to be worked out, in a constitutional manner, by a commission composed of elected deputies from each province. But this was not to take place. The Viennese Revolution made this impossible, since the regular flow of constitutional life was inter-rupted, and after that Revolution, any constitutional procedure was to fall increasingly under the shadow of official suspicion, as savouring of revolution and anarchy. Thus, the next stage in the disposition of the problem of serfdom was already accomplished as a pure fiat, imposed from above: this was the Patent of March 4, 1849.72 It provided for a government commission to deal with problems concerned with compen-sation and laid down guidelines for its conduct.

It took several years (till 1853) for all difficulties to be ironed out and all problems settled. In the final count, a little under one million peasants in Bohemia and Moravia came within the scope of the com-

71 H. Traub, "Moravske casopisectvo v letech 1848-49", Casopis Ceskeho musea, XCIV (1920), p. 109. 72 Cerny, Boj, pp. 581-87. The new octroyed constitution and the companion "Bill of Rights" were also dated March 4, 1849. In point of fact, all these documents were issued on March 7, but were predated.


pensation law. The number of estates entitled to compensation was 1,912. The total amount received by the estates was 94 million florins, of which about one-fourth went to schools, churches, and similar cor-porations.73 The peasant was obliged to pay one-third of the compensa-tion, with the other two-thirds devolving upon the state; as a taxpayer, of course, the peasant also shouldered some of the burden borne by the state. The payment period was twenty years and the average amount an individual peasant had to pay annually was (in Bohemia) no more than ten florins (in many, if not most, cases, even less).74 This was not a really prohibitive amount; thus its levy met with no widespread or intense opposition. But the compensation was a boon to the landowner, making it possible for him to introduce technological improvements and rationalize agricultural production - in itself, a desirable objective except that under the circumstances it placed the emancipated peasant at a competitive disadvantage. Considering the many centuries during which the peasant had chafed in serfdom and had borne the brunt of taxation, this seemed a dubious way of releasing him from that serfdom. Whatever the legal terminology enveloping the 1848 reform legislation, the peasant had, in effect, been made to pay for attaining his freedom. It is true that the landless peasant was not required to pay any com-pensation. But then he was obliged to struggle with a different, more onerous burden: the lack of land. The legislators and governments of 1848 both failed to face up to this problem squarely: the problem of a landless peasantry was one of the principal items of "unfinished busi-ness" left from the revolutionary era - an unhappy legacy bequeathed to the coming generations.

73 Pfehled ceskosl. dejin II/1, p. 66. 74 Roubík, "K vyvazeni gruntu", p. 209.

czech peasantry in 1848 - de gruyter

Documents