emancipation of the peasantry in lower austria: the ... · emancipation of the peasantry in lower...

C:\Users\Günther\Desktop\Eigene Dateien\Emancipation.docGchaloup Seite 1 19.07.2010

Emancipation of the peasantry in Lower Austria: the economists‘ views, the role of the

Estates, and the revolution of 1848

Günther Chaloupek

Chamber of Labour, Vienna

Contribution to the 23rd

Heilbronn Symposion, June 18-20, 2010

FIRST DRAFT

1. The system of land tenure and agricultural reform

1.1. Principal characteristics of the system of land tenure of the 18th

century1

In the system of land tenure which had taken shape during the Middle Ages agricultural land

was divided among noble land owners (“Dominikalland” or “Herrenland” - “demesne”) and

small farm holdings. As owners of these holdings, peasants were positioned in a special

relationship (“nexus subditelae”) to the lord of the estate (“Grundherr”) to whom, as superior

owner, the peasants owed a variety of services and other duties. There was a twofold

relationship between peasants as hereditary subjects (“Erbuntertänige”) and the lord:

economic and political. According to the structure of society of pre-modern Europe, superior

ownership of farmland was connected with the function of local judicial and administrative

authority.

In the Habsburg Empire of the 18th

century forms of land tenure diverged considerably among

provinces as well as within provinces. In Lower Austria peasants‟ obligations consisted to a

major part in personal labour services (“Robot”) and the provision of draft animals

(“Spanndienste”), augmented by a variety of duties in kind or in cash (“Zehent”). This type of

land tenure was the prevailing form in the Eastern provinces of the monarchy, whereas in the

Western and Southern provinces Robot was less important or unknown (Tyrol).

The demesne was usually not managed and operated by the lords themselves, but by tenants

whose position vis á vis the lord was much weaker than that of the other peasants. Tenants‟

descendants had no right to inheritance of the land, obligations of the tenant were more far-

reaching and more pressing, while even his position as holder of the farm land was often

precarious.

1 The following description is based on Grünberg 1898, Blum 1952, Feigl 1964.


1.2. The agricultural reform movement

With the transformation of the medieval feudal political system to the absolutist state of the

18th

century interventions into the relationship between the landed aristocracy and peasants by

the emperor as sovereign increased in scope as well as in intensity. With the rise of

mercantilism the spirits of the landed aristocracy had become increasingly profit oriented. The

lords used and abused their power to expand their demesnes at the expense of peasants‟ land

(“Bauernlegen”). Since only the latter was taxable, whereas the demesne was tax-exempt, the

consequence was a reduction of tax revenues of the sovereign. Hence, the emperors issued

decrees by which tax exemption was confined to the original demesne while the land the lords

had wrested from peasants should still be held taxable. The increase of labour services and

other duties enforced upon the peasants by the lord in order to cultivate his expanded demesne

was another consequence of the conversion of peasants‟ land. To prevent excessive

exploitation, imperial decrees also aimed at a limitation of peasants‟ obligations vis á vis the

lord. In reality, these decrees turned out to be largely ineffective.

There were motives for these efforts of the sovereign to protect the peasants against the class

of the landed aristocracy were essential. First, the status of a European power would have

been unsustainable without a strong economic base supported by a high level of productivity

in agriculture. Moreover, “the age of enlightened despotism had dawned in Austria. The state,

under the firm and capable leadership of Maria Theresa, had set out upon a policy of imposing

uniformity, legal codification, and administrative efficiency upon the realm in order to

aggrandize (vergrößern, erheben) the central power at the expense of noble and provincial

privilege.” (Blum, p. 47)

In the literature2, Empress Maria Theresa‟s “Robot-patents” issued after 1770 are considered

as the first measures towards an effective regulation of the relationship between peasant and

lord. In Lower Austria, the Robotpatent of 1772 which was issued without prior consultation

of the Estates, provided for a significant reduction of labour services and other duties of the

peasants. (Grünberg 1898, p. 13f) With respect to those peasants who were only tenants on

patrimonial demesnes, special decrees were issued which regulated the conditions of purchase

of the land by the peasant, yet not as a unilateral right to purchase on the side of the peasant.

If the government hesitated shied away from such revolutionary acts, it was hoped that other

2 See Grünberg 1898, p. 11ff; ...


noble landowners would follow the practice of the royal family who granted the tenants on

their own demesnes the right to purchase their holdings (Blum p. 50f).

Agricultural reform accelerated dramatically when Emperor Joseph II. succeeded his mother

as sovereign of the crown lands in 1780. In 1781 Joseph issued his famous “Leibeigenschafts-

Aufhebungspatent” (abolition of slavery act)3 which took force in all provinces of the

Habsburg monarchy (including Hungarian provinces). By this decree peasants as hereditary

subjects or tenants were no longer obliged to obtain permission from the lord for marriage, for

leaving the estate permanently, and for learning and performing any skill or trade of their

choice. Moreover, robot of the peasant‟s children for the lord was abolished.

Parallel to its legislation that regulated and limited content and volume of peasants‟

obligations, a legal obligation was imposed on the lords to employ clerks (“Gutsbeamte”)

educated in legal sciences to acting on their behalf in exercising the executive powers over

hereditary subjects. In addition, a structure of new institutions was established at the local

level: beginning as early as 1753, “district offices” (“Kreisämter”, today called

“Bezirkshauptmannschaften”) were set up with the function to supervise the execution of th

lords‟ executive powers, and also to take over these function from the lords in the long run.

(Feigl 1964, p. 327ff)

In February 1789 the Emperor issued a decree - the Steuer- und Urbarialregulierung - that

should have been the completion of his agricultural reforms. (Grünberg 1899 p.18f, Blum

p.54f) Based on the land cadastre established in 1785 all duties and obligations of peasants

were to be valued in money terms. Peasant‟s obligations to the lord were limited at 17 7/9 of

total returns of the holding, while all obligations were converted into money payments. In

addition, the tax on agricultural land was set at 12 2/9 of total returns, so that the peasant kept

70 percent. As a consequence of the limit on obligations towards the lords, the rights of the

3 Grünberg 1898, p. 17f, Blum p. 52f. - Following G.F. Knapp's (1897) judgement, for Blum (p. 52f, FN 29) the

term "Leibeigenschaft", and hence the name of joseph's patent of 1781 is a "misnomer". If peasants were bound

to the soil ("schollenpflichtig"), this was not slavery. "Erbuntertänigkeit" (hereditary subjection) was the most

accurate expression for their status. - The third edition (1824) of Ferdinand Hauer's reference work "Praktische

Darstellung der für das Unterthansfach bestehenden Gesetze" remains ambiguous in that respect. The

introduction states that the ancient Roman institute of slavery had never been accepted by the German tribes who

have inhabited Lower Austria since the Migration of Nations, while emphasizing at the same time that those

forms of serfdom and subjection estabvlishe by the feudal system had disappeared with the dissolution of this

system: "Als Resultat dieser hsitorischen Bemerkungen zeigt sich, daß die ersten Bewohner des Landes

Niederösterreich ... nie das Sistem der römischen Knechtschaft in seinem ganzen Umfange angenommen haben,

... daß die Lehensverfassung auch in Österreich eingeführt wurde, ... dass mit der Auflösung dieses Sistems auch

die Kenchtschaft und Leibeigenschaft verschwunden sind ..." (Hauer 1824, vol. 1, p. 24)


latter were substantially reduced, in many cases by as much as half or even two thirds. The

decree did not apply to tenured peasants on desmesne land.

1.3. Annulment and standstill after Joseph‟s death

Joseph‟s decree of February 1789 encountered fierce opposition from the landed aristocracy

in all provinces of the empire. Moreover, after the outbreak of the French revolution the

Austrian Netherlands had revolted against the crown, and the war against Turkey had ended in

a defeat. In this situation of turmoil and confusion, Joseph himself had to withdraw the decree

for Hungary. After his death in February 1790, Joseph‟s brother and successor Leopold II.

repealed the decree of February 1789 for the other provinces, while the abolition act of 1781

remained intact. Leopold issued a patent that provided for a voluntary conversion of

obligations into money payments. The impact of this decree was quite substantial: according

to an official report “the lords of 1600 estates in Lower Austria had made agreements with

their peasants to compound the Robot service into money.” (Blum p. 56) The standstill of the

reform movement came with a decree issued 1798 by Leopold‟s conservative successor Franz

I., which complicated formal procedures of conversion to a degree that it became almost

impossible for peasants to get rid of their Robot and Zehent duties. Thereafter, until 1848,

hardly any change was accomplished in the relationship between peasants and lords.

2. The economists’ views on the system of land tenure

2.1. Mercantilism: Joseph von Sonnenfels and his predecessor

In 1750 Johann Heinrich Gottlob von Justi (1705-1771) was appointed to the chair in

cameralist sciences (Kameralwissenschaften) at the newly established Theresianum academy

of public administration in Vienna4. His “Grundsätze der Polizeywissenschaft” of 1756 were

published a few years after he had already left Vienna. It can be assumed that this first version

of Justi‟s “Principles” is based on the notes for the lectures he held at the Theresianum.

Justi‟s starting point for his discussion of agricultural policy issues was population. (Sommer

part 2, pp. 239ff5) In order to increase the capacity of agricultural production to support a

growing population, the surplus of the agricultural sector would have to be increased. Justi

thought that small farm holdings were more likely than large rural estates to serve this

4 On Justi in Vienna see Chaloupek 2009.

5 In this context Sommer refers to Justi‟s book “Die Grundfeste zur Macht und Glückseligkeit der Staaten” (2

vols., 1760/61).


important goal of mercantilist policy by using more intensive methods of cultivation. Hence,

he advocated a rather even distribution of arable land among peasants, and, as a consequence,

the conversion of the demesnes into small farm holdings. Moreover, Justi argued that the land

should be given to peasants as proprietors rather than as tenants because a maximum of efforts

to improve productivity of the land only from peasants when they were sole proprietors. For

similar reasons, Justi argued that forced labour (“Frondienste”) was an inferior method of

cultivating demsnes. He recommended that such services should be abolished or at least

converted into money payments. (ibidem, p. 242).

In 1763 Joseph von Sonnenfels (1732-1817) was appointed to the newly established chair of

administrative and cameralist sciences (Polizei- und Kameralwissenschaften) at the University

of Vienna6. In that year he also began to teach at the Theresianum academy. Sonnenfels

exerted considerable influence on the policies of the government of the Habsburg monarchy

in the age of “enlightened absolutism”, especially under the reign of Empress Maria Theresia,

in his capacity as member of various consultative committees as well as – more indirectly –

teacher of several generations of students of state science of who formed the main corps of

civil servants of the Habsburg monarchy.

Sonnenfels was a proliferous writer. The three volumes of his “Grundsätze der Polizey,

Handlung und Finanz” appeared successively after 1765 (here quoted from the 5th

edition

1786). They continued to be used as textbook at the university long after his death7, to be

replaced by Joseph Kudler‟s “Grundlehren” only in 1845 (see the following section). The

second volume (“Handlung”) contains a long chapter on agriculture (“Von der

Landwirthschaft”) where Sonnenfels discusses in detail, among other subjects, economic

aspects of the system of land tenure. He defines as “optimal condition of agriculture from the

viewpoint of the state” the maximum use of the land to meet the requirements of subsistence

and commerce8. In order to ensure that a maximum of arable land is put under cultivation he

recommends various kinds of supervisory measures, arrangements of insurance against

6 On Sonnenfels„ life and work see Kann 1962, pp. 149-257.

7 The last, 8th edition of Sonnenfels„ Grundsätze appeared in 1819.

8 "Die Vollkommenheit der Landwirthschaft von Seite des Staates betrachtet, ist die möglichste Benutzung des

Erdreichs, nach dem Erfodernisse des Unterhalts und der Handlung." (p.34) It is worth noting that, in a footnote,

Sonnenfels remarked that the goal from the viewpoint of the state is different from that of the private owner who

aims at the highest return with the least advances ("das stärkste Erträgnis mit der kleinsten Vorauslage", p. 35)


adverse occurrencies, prevention of undue diversion of land for purpose of luxury

consumption, etc.

Sonnenfels leaves no doubt that in his view the insecurity of property rights is the

fundamental flaw in the prevailing system of land tenure. If the lords were able to realize that

a system which keeps peasants in a position of hereditary subject is to their own disadvantage,

they would not resist the abolition of this system. As far as the lords‟ rights are based on

historical rights of possession, they have been questioned on grounds of the ancient and

imprescriptible rights of mankind9.

In the position of a tenant, the peasant is exposed to risks by which he could be denied to reap

the fruits of his own efforts which prevents him from cultivating his land with maximum care

and ambition. Such risks are that he could be transferred to an other farm holding whose

cultivation the lord seeks to improve. (p. 54) Sonnenfels recommends that the lord‟s right of

withdrawal of demesne land from tenured holders (“Abstiftung”) should be abolished. (p. 55)

Excessive duties in money or in kind do not result in increased, but rather in diminished

productive efforts on the side of peasants10

. Lords must be prevented from inflicting damage

upon field crops when they indulge in their pleasure for hunting. Governmental policies with

respect to prices of grain and other agricultural products must take into account the peasants‟

needs for subsistence as well as for investment in land amelioration. (p. 61ff).

With respect to land owned by the state Sonnenfels recommends that it be divided into small

holdings and cultivated by individual peasants. Sonnenfels expects that this will demonstrate

the superior performance of small holdings compared to large estates, and thus convince

aristocratic land owners to follow the example of the state. (p. 82f)

The owners of large estates should not be allowed to expand their possessions at the expense

of peasants„ land. (p. 121) Tenure does not give sufficient incentives to the tenant to make all

the improvements that could possibly be made, especially not those whose rewards can be

expected only after a long gestation period. At least, the tenure contracts should be made on a

long term basis (25 to 30 years), or hereditary contracts. (p. 122)

9 "Das Recht, welches sich auf einen alten Besitz gründet, ist ohenhin durch die älteren und unverjährbaren

Rechte der Menschheit sehr zweifelhaft gemacht." (p. 53)

10 "Die Erfahrung bestätiget es zu sehr, wie wenig staatsklug der Grundsatz ist: Der Bauer ist dann am

Ämsigsten, wenn er elend ist." (p. 56)


In Sonnenfels„ view, Robot is an inferior, less productive form of labour, even if such services

are of modest size, because the labourers do not work for their own advantage.11

It is to the

mutual advantage of the lord and the peasant to convert labour services into money payments

(p. 125f) - but this would be only a second-best solution. He also points to the disadvantage of

duties in kind which prevent the tenant from switching to more productive crops. (p. 133)

Sonnenfels argues that common pastures are an an inferior form of land use. (p. 137)

The full potential of agricultural production could be realized only if full proprietorship of the

land is transferred to the peasants who are the cultivators. Sonnenfels recommends that the

large estates are divided among peasants who should be entitled to purchase the land from the

lords. In order to enable peasants to finance these purchases, instalment plans should be

offered. If necessary, part of the transfer should be without compensation. (p. 126f)

Sonnenfels expected that this recommendation would be most vigorously opposed not from

the lords themselves but from their administrative officials entrusted with the economic

management of estates and also with the execution of the judiciary functions of the lords.

Therefore, the main task was to convince the lords that a partitioning of their estates would

not reduce their revenues. (p. 127)

Sonnenfels confronts the opinion of certain French and English economists (Auburthnot,

Young) who had argued that large surpluses from the agricultural sector could only be

expected from large estates, whereas small peasants would mainly produce for their own

consumption. Sonnenfels replied that this might be true if farm holdings are very small, the

increase in agricultural produce resulting from a reform of the system of tenure would be

large enough to provide an even greater surplus available for the non-agricultural population.

(p. 129ff)

Sonnenfels builds his critique of the system of land tenure overwhelmingly on arguments of

productivity and efficiency. But he does not conceal his sympathy for peasants as a class that

is “bent under hundred kinds of oppression”. His intention is not to elevate peasants above the

other classes. Sonnenfels says that he “would be content “if the protective hand of the prince

11 „Aber auch, wo die Frohnden ausgemessen sind, bleibt immer die nachtheilige Folge, daß die Felder, welche

durch die Frohndienste bearbeitet werde, schlecht bestellt sind; weil überhaupt zur Frohne, nicht wie zum

eigenen Nutzen gearbeitet wird …“ (p. 123f)


would not permit that they are oppressed by lords and their clerks, or exposed to extortion

from the military, or treaded upon by the other classes”12

(p. 147f).

To express such views freely and without consequence, Sonnenfels had to be in a privileged

position which had been granted to him personally by Empress Maria Theresia who had

protected Sonnenfels against the attacks from the archbishop of Vienna. Whereas for other

political tracts permission had to be obtained from censorship, “freedom of schools” should

apply in the case of Sonnenfels who had to “use it with reasonable modesty”.13

2.2. Joseph von Kudler

Josef Ritter von Kudler (1786-1853)14

was appointed to professor of political science and

Austrian public law (“Professor der politischen Wissenschaften und der österreichischen

politischen Gesetzeskunde”) at the University of Vienna in 1821. His first major book was a

two-volume tract on penal law15

. In 1846 (actually 1845) his Grundlehren der Volkswirtschaft

appeared in two parts, reprinted in 1856. Kudler‟s book replaced Sonnenfels‟ Grundsätze

which continued to be used as textbook in the studies of state science an economics 30 years

after the death of its author. In the preface to his book, Kudler acknowledges the great merits

of Sonnenfels‟ work, which he characterizes as a “handbook of policies for welfare” without

theoretical foundation. A new textbook was overdue, in order to take due account of the great

progress accomplished by the economic science since the publication of Sonnenfels‟ book,

and even more so because of its mercantilist (bevormundend - “patronizing”) orientation. (p.

vi f.) The first part of Kudler‟s Grundlehren is a synthesis of abstract economic theory of its

times. In the second part (“Der Volkswirthschaftslehre practischer Theil”) Kudler applies the

theoretical insights to matters of economic and social policy.

12 „Ich begnüge mich, wenn die schützende Hand des Regenten nicht zugiebt, dass sie von den Grundherren und

ihren Beamten gedrückt, von dem Militär Plackereyen ausgesetzt, von den andere Klassen untergetreten werde.“

(p.147f)

13 Da aber hat zwar die Schulfreiheit einzutreten, da aber hat sie der Lehrer in einer vernünftigen Mäßigung zu

gebrauchen.“ (Kann 1962, p. 179) The examples of a tract by Johann Wiegand, Ökonomische Betrachtungen,

von der Roboth und den Frohndiensten überhaupt“ (Vienna 1776, mentioned in Sommer, part 2, p. 242 ), and

the tract “Verwandlung der Domänen in Bauerngüter” by an unnamed author, mentioned by Sonnenfels himself

(p. 127) show that land reform has been an issue of public debate for some time.

14 On Kudler‟s life and work see Lustkandl 1891, pp. 39ff.

15 The reform of penal law had also been one of Sonnenfels„ preferred subjects.


The first section of the second part is devoted to primary production. As regards the political

issues of agricultural reform, he first takes up the “appropriate distribution of land”

(“zweckmäßige Bodenvertheilung”): the size of farm holdings should be sufficient to provide

opportunity for full employment of the owner and his family. (p. 5f) Kudler disagrees with the

Physiocratic opinion that large estates can provide a higher agricultural surplus available for

the urban population. If there are any advantages on the side of large estates, they are

outweighed by higher intensity of cultivation and more intensive efforts to make

improvements of the land if the land is cultivated by the owner himself, provided that the size

of holdings is not too small. (p. 29ff)

Among alternative forms of land tenure the best suited are those which give its cultivator “the

greatest freedom of use and improvement of his land”. Therefore, full proprietorship is the

optimal legal form, whereas all other forms are economically inferior. The disadvantages of

hereditory forms of tenure are smaller than tenure for a limited time, or freely revocable

tenure. (p. 8)

To realize the optimal form of proprietorship, legal provisions should facilitate that “farm

holdings are transferred into possession of those who have most abilities, means and

dispositions to manage them.”16

Transfer of ownership should be accomplished without

putting excessive financial burdens on the buyer. (p. 8)

Towards the obligations of peasants as hereditary subjects Kudler takes a sharply critical

stance. The peasants‟ economic powers are severely reduced by duties in kind or in money,

and even more so by rigid forms of fulfilment which restrict the freedom of disposition. For

that reason, duties in kind should be replaced by monetary payments, either permanent

payments or payments for a limited time. Services of the lord to which the peasant is entitled

must be duly taken into account. The government is called upon to encourage such

settlements by specifying its modalities, by establishing appropriate institutions to act as

mediators, by setting examples with royal desmesnes. In the same vein, Kudler points out in

detail the reasons for low productivity of Robot and recommends its conversion into money

payments. (p. 37ff)

16 „In Beziehung auf die Erwerbung von Grundeigenthum soll die leitende Maxime für die Gesetzgebung die

sein, es möglich zu machen, daß die Wirthschaften mit Leichtigkeit in die Hände solcher Besitzer übergehen,

welche die meiste Fähigkeit, Mittel und Neigung haben, sie gut zu bewirthschaften.“ (p. 8)


All together, Kudler‟s judgments about the existing system of land tenure which was more or

less unchanged from the time of Emperor Joseph II., as well as the arguments on which he

bases his critique, were the same as those of Joseph von Sonnenfels. The only difference is

that Kudler expresses his arguments in more abstract language.

In 1848 Kudler was elected to the Austrian Reichstag. He also became a delegate to the

Frankfurt parliament. In his speeches before the Reichstag he engaged himself in debates

about criminal law with considerable success. His motion to abolish death penalty was

adopted by a large majority in early 1849 (Lustkandl 1891, p. 51), but it was re-introduced by

the counterrevolution a few months later.

3. The Estates’ petitions for land reform

During the decades following the death of Emperor Joseph the peasants endured the

continuing hardships of subjection with great patience. But soon after the July-revolution of

1830 in France signs of increasing unrest mounted. In the north-western part of Lower Austria

peasants started to refuse the lords‟ right to pasture their herds and flocks on meadows and

fallow fields. (Bibl p.105ff) When the movement began to encroach on neighbouring estates

in other districts the authorities had to call for support from the armed forces. Putting the

ringleaders to jail or subjecting them to corporal punishment could not stop the movement.

The government hesitated to crush down on the protesters by applying brute force.

The extreme difficulty to find a way out of the situation is highlighted by a petition put before

the Emperor by the Estates in 1835. On the one hand, the Estates demanded that all

obligations from hereditary subjection be converted into money payments. On the other hand,

they expressed doubts that peasants would still be willing to accept such a solution, since

delusions (“Wahn”) were widespread among peasants that Robot and Zehent would soon be

abolished without compensation. The Emperor was asked to issue a decree to confirm the

lawfulness of existing duties and obligations. (Bibl, p. 124f) The petition was rejected by the

government, no further action was taken.

When the process of industrialization gained momentum in Austria during the 1820‟s and

1830‟s, labour migration to Vienna and to the south-eastern part of Lower Austria, where

many of the new industries were located, increased, and in its wake crowds of vagrants and

beggars passed through the rural parts of the country. New decrees to enforce public safety

issued by the government brought with them increased responsibilities and also costs for the

lords in their function of public administrators at the local level. (Bibl, p. 129ff)


With the completion of the new land cadastre in the early 1840‟s specification and

clarification of the duties and obligations strengthened the position of the lords vis á vis their

peasants, while at the same time real estate taxes increased substantially in many cases. The

lords who were responsible for collecting the tax from their peasants had already for some

time been complaining about lack of support from the government when it came to the

execution of duties. In this situation group of progressive aristocrats started a new initiative

for agricultural reform for which gained the support of the majority of the Estates of Lower

Austria at their meeting in 1843. (Bibl, p. 190 ff, Blum, p. 212ff)

In a petition to the government of Lower Austria and to the Emperor, the Estates asked for a

decree that would greatly facilitate the redemption of all duties and obligations by peasants on

a voluntary basis17

. In its more radical version, which was, however, supported only by some

40 percent of the assembly members, the petition requested that after five years redemption

should be compulsory. The tax assessments based on the new cadastre were based on

fictitious values of dues and services which the lords did not receive in reality. The main

reason for these deficiencies was the inefficiency of duties in kind and forced labour services.

Duties in kind - the Zehent - had the fundamental weakness that waste and costs of collection

were unnecessarily high. The inefficiencies weighed even more heavily with respect to Robot.

As a form of labour, Robot functioned as a training opportunity for shirking, thus not only

producing grossly inadequate results but also exerting a debilitating effects on individual and

social morals18

. To cut through this Gordic knot of anomalies, redemption of obligations was

proposed by the Estates as only possible solution, which would be to the benefit of peasants,

lords and the state. The petition provided that the lords would keep their administrative and

jurisdictional responsibilities. In order to enable peasants to raise the capital necessary for

obtaining full property rights of their holdings, the petition included the recommendation to

establish a mortgage bank that would offer loans to peasants on a long term basis to finance

their payments to the lords, and to promote amelioration of land and more productive use of

all resources.

17 Baron Walterskirchen and Freiherr von Doblhoff-Dier were the main advocates of the petition. Both enjoyed a

high reputation for successful managemnet of their estates as well as for humane treatment of their subjects.

Doblhoff served as Prime Minister during the revolution in 1848.

18 "Die Roboth ist eine der wesentlichen Ursachen der sittlichen Entartung des Volkes; Unzufriedenheit,

Erbitterung der Gemüther und endlose Streitigkeiten sind die gewöhlichen Begleiter derselben. In der Roboth

lernt der Arbeiter Trägheit, Nachlässigkeit und allerlei Unrechtlichkeiten...". Petition of the Estates of Lower

Austria of 1844, reprinted in Andrian-Werburg 1847, p. 147.


In the provincial government of Lower Austria and in the state conference of the monarchy

which acted on behalf of Emperor Ferdinand, where the conservatives were dominant, the

legitimacy of the petition was denied both for economic and political reasons. The prevailing

opinion was that there was no need for reform of the - largely ineffective - decree of 1798,

and that the Estates had unduly gone far beyond their constitutional right to advise

governmental decisions. But there was no formal reply to the Estates‟ petition until 1846.

The concerns which stood behind the petitions of the Lower Austrian Estates were also

expressed in many books and pamphlets which called for a reform of the political system of

the Habsburg monarchy. The most famous example of this kind of literature was Viktor von

Andrian-Werburg‟s book “Österreich und dessen Zukunft”, published anonymously in

Hamburg in 1842, a second part in 184719

. Andrian argued that only a replacement of the

existing regime by a liberal constitutional system could ensure the survival of the monarchy.

As regards agricultural reform, Andrian quotes extensively from the petition of the Estates.

He supports the proposal that a terminal date be set for voluntary redemption. (Andrian 1847,

p. 142ff).

From Hungary, where the noble movement for agricultural reform had started, and from

Lower Austria it spread to the Estates of the other crown lands of the Habsburg Empire20

. The

government took three years for reaction to the petitions. Only in late 1846, after the eruption

of violent peasant revolts in Galicia, a new decree was issued which hardly went beyond the

ineffective legislation of 1798 with which redemption had come to a halt. (Bibl, p. 295f,

Blum, p. 222ff). A definite solution of the central problem of agricultural policy could be

realized only after the outbreak of the revolution in March 1848.

4. The revolution of 1848 and the emancipation law

The Estates of Lower Austria again played a key role in the events that sparked off the

revolution of 1848. When a huge crowd of protesters gathered in front of the meeting place of

the Estates, the Landhaus, on March 13, 1848, the Estates sent a delegation to the Hofburg to

present their demands for immediate reform of the political system to the state conference.

19 The author belonged to the landed aristocracy of Tyrol. He served in the provincial administration of

Lombardy and in one of the bodies of the central government. The sale of the book was strictly prohibited in

Austria, nonetheless it was widely read.

20 A study on the system of land tenure in Galicia was Ludwig von Mises' first major publication (Die

Entwicklung des gutsherrlich-bäuerlichen Verhältnisses in Galizien bis zu seiner Auflösung 1772-1848, Vienna

1902), written under the direction of Karl Grünberg.


But at this moment even the abdication of Chancellor Metternich could not prevent the

outbreak of violence in the streets of Vienna. After the proclamation of a provisional

constitution in April, general elections were held for provincial representations and a national

Reichstag in May and early June.

Peasants‟ deputies accounted for 92 out of 383 members of the Reichstag. In its third session,

a motion of Dr. Hans Kudlich, deputy from Austrian Silesia, was accepted unanimously that

proclaimed the immediate termination of hereditary subjection, with reservation as to further

regulation, if and to what extent compensation is required. (Grünberg, p. 43) The peasants

supported their claims with a powerful demonstration that took place in Vienna on the 24th

September 1848. (Kudlich, vol. 2, p. 204f) The ambiguity of the resolution was resolved after

a long struggle between conflicting interests in the last session held by the Reichstag in

Vienna (7th

Sept. 1848), with specification of further details by the Reichstag of Kremsier in

March 1849.

The emancipation laws (“Grundentlastungsgesetze”) set an end to all duties and obligations.

Rules for compensation distinguished between peasants‟ land and demesne land. In the case

of peasants‟ land, the holder, the lord and the state equally shared the burden of

compensation. For tenants of demesne land legal provisions for compensation were less

favourable. In addition, the laws provided that all jurisdictional and administrative

competences were transferred from the lords to institutions of the state. (Grünberg, p. 48ff)21

Thus the revolution had brought about the agricultural reform for which the Estates of Lower

Austria had been pleading for several years without success. The satisfaction of peasants‟

demands was a decisive step that neutralized the peasant class as political force, providing the

basis for the bourgeois class and the more progressive parts of the aristocracy to overcome the

democratic movement.

For Hans Kudlich, the leader of the democratic peasant movement during the period of

revolution, the proposals of the progressive aristocrats did not deserve credit for the break-

through of agricultural reform. If the broad masses of the population had sympathized with

“the Estates of Lower Austria, who, with their attitude of noble condescension towards the

people tried to refresh peoples‟ sentiments in favour of their privileges”, such manifestations

had eventually proved powerless and without result. “Only when the fierce monster, the desert

21 Implementation of the redemption was a complex and demanding procedure which was handled efficiently by

the rural administrative bodies.


lion of revolution had put its claws upon the throat of the rulers ... the movement produced

results in practice.” (Kudlich, vol. 1, p. 90f) In the eyes of the revolutionary democrats, the

termination of economic exploitation and of social and political suppression of the peasant

population was the principal and foremost achievements of the emancipation laws22

.

In respect of the political system, the emancipation laws went far beyond the reform program

of the progressive noblemen. In the understanding of the petition of the Estates of Lower

Austria of 1843 (Bibl, p. 192) the jurisdictional and administrative competences of the lords

would have been upheld. The transfer of these competences to the state accelerated the

decline of the dominant position of the aristocracy in the political system.

22 See, e.g., Violand, p. 64ff; Bach, 285ff.


Literatur

Andrian-Werburg, Viktor von, Österreich und dessen Zukunft, Hoffmann und Campe,

Hamburg 18433; Zweiter Theil Verlag Ludwig Giese, Hamburg 1847

Bach, Maximilian, Geschichte der Wiener Revolution im Jahre 1848, Verlag der

Volksbuchhandlung, Vienna 1898

Bibl, Viktor, Die niederösterreichischen Stände im Vormärz. Verlag Gerlach und Wiendling,

Vienna 1911

Blum, Jerome, Noble landowners and agriculture in Austria, 1815-1848, The ohns Hopkins

Press, Baltimore 1948

Chaloupek, Günther, J.H.G. Justi in Austria: His Writings in the Context of Economic and

Industrial Policies of the Habsburg Empire in the 18tzh Century, in: Jürgen Georg Backhaus

(ed.), The Beginnings of Political Economy. Johann Heinrich Gottlob von Justi, Springer New

York 2009

Feigl, Helmuth, Die niederösterreichische Grundherrschaft. Verein für Landeskunde von

Niederösterreich und Wien, Vienna 1964

Geschichte der österreichischen Land- und Forstwirtschaft und ihrer Industrien 1848-1898,

Commissions-Verlag Moritz Perles, Wien 1899

Grünberg, Carl, Die Grundentlastung, in: Geschichte der österreichischen Land- und

Forstwirtschaft und ihrer Industrien, Vol.1/1

Hauer, Ferdinand Edler von, Praktische Darstellung der in Oesterreich unter der Enns für das

Unterthansfach bestehenden Gesetze, 3rd edition by Joh. Heinrich Edlen von Kremer, 4 vol.,

bei J.G. Ritter von Mösle se. Witwe, Vienne 1824f

Kann, Robert A., Kanzel und Katheder, Herold-Verlag, Wien-Freiburg-Basel 1962

Knapp, G.F., Die Bauernbefreiung in Österreich und Preussen, in: idem, Grundherrschaft und

Rittergut, Leipzig 1897

Kudler, Joseph, Die Grundlehren der Volkswirthschaft, Verlag Carl Gerold‟s Sohn, Vienna

1846

Kudlich, Hans, Rückblicke und Erinnerungen, 3 vols., 1st edition 1873, 2nd edition

Verlagsanstalt Moldavia, Budweis (Bohemia) 1923

W. Lustkandl, Sonnenfels und Kudler, Selbstverlag der k.k. Universität, Vienna 1991

Mises, Ludwig von, Die Entwicklung des gutsherrlich-bäuerlichen Verhältnisses in Galizien

bis zu seiner Auflösung 1772-1848, Wiener staatwissenschaftliche Studien, Vol. IV, Vienna

1902

Sommer, Luise, Die österreichischen Kameralisten, Zwei Teile in einem Band (1920/1925),

reprint Scientia-Verlag, Aalen 1967

Sonnenfels, Joseph von, Grundsätze der Polizey, Handlung, und Finanz, Vol. 2; bey Alb.

Carmesina, Vienna 17865

Violand, Ernst, Die soziale Geschichte der Revolution in Österreich 1848, 1850, new

abridged) edition by W. Häusler, Österreichischer Bundesverlag, Vienna 1984

emancipation of the peasantry in lower austria: the ... · emancipation of the peasantry in lower...

Documents