Metternich and the Austrian Empire 1815-48

This essay is a Précis on Chapter 7 of Aspects of European History 1789-1980, by Stephen J. Lee:

Lee, Stephen J.. Aspects of European History 1789-1980. Routledge, 1982.

Clement von Metternich is considered by most historians to be the most significant conservative statesman in Europe in the 19th Century. He was both Minister of Foreign Affairs of Austria and Austrian State Chancellor during the first half of the 19th Century. He was, in all ways, an absolutist who sought for the retainment of full monarchical powers. He believed in a careful and well-ordered evolutionary social and political development which he feared was being jeopardized by the liberal minority that pushed for a more violent and brisk form of change. These unproductive ways of thinking, he explained, were caused by man’s inability to deal with technical progress. He further stated that liberalism was fostering revolution in Europe in 1815 and the only way to counter this was by reimposing equilibrium in the monarchies. In his opinion this had to be done internally through the use of responsible policies and externally by joint action from all monarchs. He did this in an effort to re-establish order which, as he put it, produced equilibrium. Through this order (an extension of police powers and increased censorship) he sought to very cautiously improve the conditions of the people and of the functioning of the administration. Unfortunately, he was not considered to be much of a reformer for any one in his time period because of his lack of achievement. This was due to two main problems: his inability to properly analyze several crucial political situations (particularly when it came to domestic affairs) and the impediments which seriously hampered the changes he proposed.

Many modern European rulers show a trend when dealing with problems that in one way or another involve the concept of nationalism. The similarity in all rulers (especially conservative ones) is that they tend to underestimate it. At the time, the Habsburg Empire was composed of a dozen major racial groups. Thus, the Austrian Empire was a ripe location for any one to underestimate nationalism. Metternich recognized that the variety of aspirations that resulted from having so many different racial groups posed a threat to his ideas of order and equilibrium. What Metternich was not able to recognize was that by using the centripetal power of the traditional Habsburg dynasty against the centrifugal forces of nationalism he would achieve nothing but general discontent. Perhaps a more effective way to counter the internal problems caused by nationalism would have been federalism. Unfortunately, Metternich was not too keen on the idea of federalism for the simple reason that he automatically went against anything which in some way suggested change. This rationale also prevented him from working with moderate reformers such as Count Széchenyi, who received nothing but discouragement from him when proposing a series of moderate political and social reforms. This, added to Metternich’s policy of ‘salutary terror,’ did nothing but foster the growth of extremists groups. Because nothing was done after this to stop the growing discontent, separatist movements erupted openly in Hungary, Bohemia and the Italian states in 1848. Although Metternich shouldn’t be held responsible for all the problems caused by the Empire’s regional antipathies, he should be blamed for missing so many opportunities for compromise. Instead of compromise, Metternich alternated between promoting provincial identities and encouraging antagonism between the different races inside the Empire. This policy of ‘divide and rule’ was fully supported by Emperor Francis, who believed it would give way to general peace.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The reason for which Metternich never gave into federalism was because he thought it would give way to constitutional concessions like strengthened representative bodies. And as he said, adequate statesmen govern ‘so as to avoid a situation in which concessions become necessary.’ He blamed the middle class for promoting political parties which then applied the pressure for constitutional change. He even followed this trend back to universities, which he felt were the source of all evil. Metternich was convinced of the need for repressive measures such as a secret police force and a severe censorship. There were, he stated, two options: severe censorship or complete freedom of the press. Staying anywhere between them was a mistake France had committed and that Austria would not repeat. All these ideas made Austria the second most intransigent autocracy in Europe. In fact, between 1815 and 1848, Russia and Austria were the only two major European powers to tolerate feudalism. Metternich’s reason for fearing fundamental social reforms was that he saw it as a threat to internal equilibrium and thus a step towards destructive revolutionary forces. All around Austria peasant grievances mounted during the 1840’s as another depression struck and harvests failed to meat the needs of the people. The only reason for which the peasants did not revolt, historians believe, was because a wider pattern of revolts broke out in 1848. Nonetheless, Metternich always considered himself to be better at the diplomatic level than at the domestic one. He tried projecting his policies to the outside world, hoping to provide a European formula for equilibrium. The way he saw it, Austria was the most moderate central European power because it stood between a more conservative Russia and a more liberal France. Overall, Metternich displayed a slight inability in adapting to change and analyzing political situations which required a certain degree of moderate reform.

Clearly, Metternich was faced with serious difficulties which rendered any efforts he made towards steady progress useless. Although he had the constant support of the Emperor Francis and consequently Ferdinand I, the latter proved to be totally incompetent. The Empire was governed by the Conference of State under which most of the authority went to the chairman Archduke Ludwig and the remaining was split amongst Archduke Francis Charles, Kolowrat and Metternich. This group of three was Metternich’s most difficult problem as conflict was always present and consensus was nearly impossible to achieve. Particularly damaging to consensus were Metternich’s clashes with Kolowrat. Metternich disliked the fact that Kolowrat was left in charge of most of the internal matters because Kolowrat, he claimed, was devoting his limited energies to disrupting Metternich’s own plans. The two major clashes between these two were Kolowrat’s proposal to limit Austria’s military estimates and his demands to build the Empire’s first railway lines in Bohemia (his homeland). Metternich wanted to keep a strong military in order to maintain his strong position in Europe, and he believed the first railway should connect the Austrian High Command to the vulnerable provinces of Northern Italy. He blamed Kolowrat of lacking in foresight and imagination for proposing such measures that would only limit Austria’s influence.

Outside of the clashes with Kolowrat, Metternich faced some obstacles posed by Emperor Francis, who feared any form of change at all. Metternich tried to impose certain constitutional changes which he thought would sharpen the Austrian bureaucracy. For example, in 1814 he proposed to implement modern ministries in lieu of the traditional colleges which were not working so well anymore. Then, he set up a Kommerzdirektorium to co-ordinate economic planning and submitted to Emperor Francis several memoranda on reform concerning the State Council, the State Conference and some new regional chancelleries. All these proposals faded away by 1830 and failed to be implemented under Francis’ claim that “this is no time for reform.” Later on, during the late 1830’s, Metternich tried to secure Austria’s membership of the Zollverein. When Kolowrat and the other archdukes heard of this and realized it meant lowering the Empire’s tariff barriers they quickly reminded Metternich that the economic matters of Austria were not of his concern. All in all, one does not have to look too deeply at the whole situation to realize that Metternich really was hampered with many obstacles that prevented any proposals for reform.

Metternich spent his life fighting to prevent the collapse of the old order which he so firmly believed in. As time passed, his failures became more apparent and resistance to his policies grew stronger. He cleverly realized that Old Europe was coming to an end, but as he put it “New Europe has not yet even begun its existence, and between the beginning and the end there will be chaos.” This chaos was what he fought to prevent and what lead him to make the metaphor of a house threatening to collapse. In England, however, conservatism was becoming more popular as the ideas of Burke were re-emerging. Interestingly enough, the metaphor associated to England in this time was that of a living organism. While conservatism was collapsing like an old and broken down house in Austria, it was growing like a living organism in England. It is no wonder then that Metternich saw himself as an anachronism and openly wished he had lived during a different era.

Outline

Metternich- Intro

Most significant conservative of first ½ of 19th Century
Full monarchical powers
‘Pure & eternal’ law place restraints on humanity
Evolutionary social and political development
Revolution: ‘ultimate human folly’
Equilibrium
Liberalism is the near menace

Metternich’s political & administrative policies

Rules a multi-national, multi-ethnic group
Constant threat of nationalism

centrifugal vs. centripetal forces

Resistant to change, pulls him away from

Federalism
Working with moderate reformers (policy of ‘salutary terror’)

Count Széchenyi

Separatist movements in Hungary, Bohemia and Italian states (1848)

Metternich not to blame for racial antipathies but yes for missing opportunities for compromise

Two different policies for Austria:

Promoting provincial identities
Encouraging antagonism between the different races in the Empire- ‘divide and rule’

Federalism

Leads to constitutional concessions in the form of strengthened representative bodies
Middle class promote political parties → pressure for const. change
Need for censorship and secret police force

Total censorship or complete freedom of the press

Metternich fears fundamental social reforms

→ Threat to internal equilibrium (destructive revolutionary forces)

+ bad harvest & depression = Peasant grievances

Metternich better at diplomatic level than at domestic level

European formula for equilibrium
France – Austria – Russia

Metternich vs. the rest of Austria

Emperor Francis

Conference of State, never reaches consensus

Chairman archduke Ludwig

Archduke Francis Charles, Kolowrat and Metternich

Metternich vs. Kolowrat

Kolowrat wants to limit Austria military, Metternich wants strong military to remain strong in Europe
Kolowrat wants first railway lines in Bohemia, Metternich wants to connect the Austrian High Command to the vulnerable provinces of Northern Italy

Metternich vs. Emperor

Wants to replace traditional colleges with modern ministries
Sets up Kommerzdirektorium to co-ordinate economic planning
Submitted to several memoranda on reform concerning:

State Council
State Conference
New regional chancelleries.

All left behind by 1830

“This is no time for change”- Emperor Francis

Zollverein

Met. Tried to secure membership
Had to lower Empire’s tariff barriers
Kolowrat and other archdukes quickly tell Met. economic matters are not of his concern.

Metternich- Conclusion

Metternich fighting to prevent collapse of old order
Old Europe comes to end, “New Europe has not yet even begun its existence, and between the beginning and the end there will be chaos.”
Conservatism in England