¹ Zöllner, Erich, Geschichte Österreichs. Von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (2nd ed., Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, 1961), p. 412Google Scholar.

² Sándor, Vilmos, Nagyipari fejlödés Magyarországon 1867–1900 [The Development of Large-Scale Industry in Hungary 1867–1900] (Budapest: Szikra, 1954), pp. 13–14Google Scholar.

³ Redlich, Josef, Das österreichische Staats- und Reichsproblem. Geschichtliche Darstellung der inneren Politik der habsburgischen Monarchie von 1848 bis zum Untergang des Reiches (2 vols., Leipzig: Neue-Geist Verlag, 1920), Vol. II, pp. 585–586 and 672–675Google Scholar.

⁴ Bibl, Viktor, Der Zerfall Österreichs, Vol. II: Von Revolution zu Revolution (Vienna: Rikola Verlag, 1924), pp. 306–308, 317–318, 391, and 406Google Scholar.

⁵ Hantsch, Hugo, Die Geschichte Österreichs (2nd ed., 2 vols., Graz: Styria, 1962), Vol. II, pp. 379–381 and 459–461Google Scholar.

⁶ Franz, Georg, Liberalismus. Die deutsch-liberale Bewegung in der habsburgischen Monarchie (Munich: D. H. Callwey, 1955), p. 363Google Scholar.

⁷ Ibid., p. 317.

⁸ Among others, see Benedikt, Heinrich, Monarchie der Gegensätze. Österreichs Weg durch die Neuzeit (Vienna: Ullstein, 1947), pp. 176–179Google Scholar; Eder, Karl, Der Liberalismus in Altösterreich (Vienna: Herold, 1955), p. 153Google Scholar; Franzel, Emil, Der Donauraum im Zeitalter des Nationalitätenprincips (Munich: Lehnen, 1958), pp. 107–109Google Scholar; and Wierer, Rudolf, Der Föderalismus im Donauraum (Graz: Böhlau, 1960), pp. 90–91Google Scholar.

⁹ Droz, Jacques, L'Europe Centrale: Évolution de l'idée historique de Mittel Europa (Paris: Payot, 1960), pp. 126 and 162–163Google Scholar. The precedents of this conception may be found in French historiography in the standard work of Eisenmann, Louis, Le compromis austro-hongrois de 1867. Étude sur le dualisme (Paris: Société Nouvelle de Libraire et d'Édition, 1904), pp. 594–596 and 617Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Kann, Robert A., The Multinational Empire: Nationalism and National Reform in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1848–1918 (2 vols., New York: Columbia University Press, 1950), Vol. I, p. 89Google Scholar.

¹¹ Charmatz, Richard, Österreichs innere Geschichte von 1848 bis 1907 (2 vols., Leipzig: Teubner, 1911–1912), Vol. I, p. 74Google Scholar; and Vol. II, p. 148.

¹² Hóman, Bálint and Szekfü, Gyula, Magyar történet [Hungarian History] (3rd ed., 5 vols., Budapest: Kir. Magy. Egyetemi Nyomda, 1935–1936), Vol. V, pp. 465–466Google Scholar; Pethöl, SándorVilágostól Trianonig [From Világos to Trianon] (3rd ed., Budapest: Enciklopédia R. T., 1925), p. 80Google Scholar; Gratz, Gusztáv, A dualizmus kora. Magyarország története 1867–1918 [The Age of Dualism. The History of Hungary 1867–1918] (2 vols., Budapest: Magyar Szemle Társaság, 1934), Vol. I, pp. 6–7 and 9–10Google Scholar.

¹³ Miskolczy, Julius, Ungarn in der Habsburger-Monarchie (Vienna: Herold Verlag, 1959), pp. 133–134 and 138–140Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Ibid., p. 199.

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 124.

¹⁶ Kossuth Laj08 Iratai [The Papers of Lajos Kossuth] (2nd ed., 13 vols., Budapest: Atheneum, 1880–1911), Vol. VII, pp. 290–323; and Vol. VIII, pp. 10–14, 27–29, and 56–57Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Mocsáry, Lajos, A közösügyi rendszer zárszámadása [The Final Accounts of the System of Common Affairs] (Budapest: Franklin, 1902), p. 39Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Révai, József first developed the Marxist evaluation of the Compromise as summarized above in his “Kossuth Lajos,” in Marxizmus, népiesség, magyarság [Marxism, Populism, Magyardom] (Budapest: Szikra, 1948), pp. 159–160Google Scholar.

¹⁹ See especially A magyar nép története [The History of the Hungarian People] (Budapest: Müvelt Nép Könyvkiadó, 1953), pp. 370 and 414–415Google Scholar; Mód, Aladár, 400 év Küzdelem az önálló Magyarországért [400 Years of Struggle for an Independent Hungary] (6th ed., Budapest: Szikra, 1951), pp. 228–229Google Scholar. Even as late as at the beginning of the twentieth century, according to Mód, Hungary was still “an Austrian colony.” Ibid., p. 317.

²⁰ Sándor, Vilmos, “Der Charakter der Abhängigkeit Ungarns im Zeitalter des Dualismus,” in Studien zur Geschichte der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie, edited by Sándor, Vilmos and Hanák, Péter. In Studia, Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, No. 51 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1961), pp. 303–330Google Scholar.

²¹ Hanák, Péter, “The Discussion of the Commission for Historical Science on the Questions of the Age of Dualism,” Századok, Vol. XCVI, No. 1–2 (1962), pp. 206–212Google Scholar; Hanák, Péter, “Probleme der Krise des Dualismus am Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts,” in Studien zur Geschichte der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie, pp. 337–382Google Scholar.

²² Matlekovits, Sándor, Közös vámterület és gazdasági elválás Ausztriától [The Common Customs Area and Economic Separation from Austria] (Budapest: Pallas R. T., 1905)Google Scholar; Katona, S., A közös vámterület [The Common Customs Area] (Budapest: Politzen, 1905)Google Scholar; Láng, L., A vámpolitika az utolsó száz évben [Tariff Policy in the Last Hundred Years] (Budapest: Politzen, 1904)Google Scholar.

²³ Keller, Rudolf, Die Industrieforderung in Ungarn (Prague: Calve, 1906)Google Scholar; Offergeld, Wilhelm, Die Grundlagen und Ursachen der industriellen Entwicklung Ungarns (Jena: Fischer, 1913)Google Scholar; Sieghart, Rudolf, Zolltrennung und Zolleinheit (Vienna: Manz, 1915)Google Scholar.

²⁴ See especially Mudrony, Soma, Iparpolitikai tanulmányok a hazai ipar emelése tárgyában [Studies on the Policy for the Development of Home Industry] (Budapest: Országos Iparegyesület, 1877)Google Scholar; Pap, David, Magyar vámterület [The Hungarian Customs Area] (Budapest: Grill, 1904)Google Scholar; and Memorandum on the Development of the Home Small and Large-Scale Industry (Budapest: n. p., 1909).

²⁵ Sándor, Nagyipari fejlödés; Sándor, Vilmos, A tökés gazdaság kibontakozása Magyarországon 1849–1900 [The Genesis of the Capitalist Economy in Hungary, 1849–1900] (Budapest: Kossuth Kiadó, 1958)Google Scholar; Berend, Iván T. and Ránki, György, A monopolkapitalizmus kialakulásaés uralma Magyarországon 1900–1944. [The Genesis and Power of Monopoly Capitalism in Hungary, 1900–1944] (Budapest: Kossuth Kiadó, 1958)Google Scholar.

²⁶ Sieghart, Zolltrennung und Zolleinheit, p. 385. See the table on the balance of trade for the years 1900–3.

²⁷ Pap, Magyar vámterület, p. 150.

²⁸ See Sieghart, Zolltrennung und Zolleinheit, p. 201 and the table on p. 403; and Pap, Magyar vámterület, p. 145.

²⁹ Benedikt, Heinrich, Die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung in der Franz-Joseph-Zeit (Vienna: Herold, 1958), pp. 78–79Google Scholar.

³⁰ Křižek, Jurij, Die wirtschaftlichen Grundzüge des österreichischungarischen Imperialismus in der Vorkriegszeit (1900–1914) (Prague: Nakladatelství Československé Akademie Věd, 1963)Google Scholar.

³¹ See Berend, Iván T. and Ránki, György, “Das Niveau der Industrie Ungarns zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts im Vergleich zu dem Europas,” in Studien zur Geschichte der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie, pp. 267–286Google Scholar; Iván T. Berend and György Ránki, Az ipari forradalom kérdéséhez Kelet-Európában [The Question of the Industrial Revolution in East Europe] (manuscript); and Iván T. Berend and György Ránki Nemzeti jövedelem és tökefelhalmozás Magyarorszáon 1867–1914 [National Income and Capital Accumulation in Hungary 1867–1914] (manuscript).

³² The basic work on the national income of Hungary is Fellner's, FrigyesAusztria és Magyarország nemzeti jövedelme [The National Income of Austria and Hungary] (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1916)Google Scholar. See also Fellner's, article on “Die Verteilung des Volksvermögens und Volkseinkommens der Länder der Ungarischen Heiligen Krone zwischen dem heutigen Ungarn und den Successions-Staaten,” Metron. Internationale Statistische Zeitschrift, Vol. III, No. 2 (1923), pp. 226–307Google Scholar. In this article he has made some corrections in the statistics which were published in the above volume. We have also used Ernst Waizner, “Das Volkseinkommen Alt-Österreichs und seine Verteilung auf die Nachfolgestaaten,” ibid., Vol. VII, No. 4 (1928), pp. 97–182. There is very little difference between the figures given in Waizner and Fellner. See also the two following standard works in which certain important corrections have been made: Clark, M. A. Colin, The Conditions of Economic Progress (3rd ed., London: Macmillan, 1957)Google Scholar; and especially Eckstein, Alexander, National Income and Capital Formation in Hungary, 1900–1950 (Cambridge: International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, 1956), pp. 2–3 and 8–10Google Scholar.

³³ For the sake of comparison, we always used only the figures for the net national product rather than those for national income. It is impossible to find the corresponding data for the early period between 1850 and 1900. Also we have been unable to make any accurate estimates in regard to the services, the foreign trade balance, and foreign payments. I have drawn on the following sources for my own calculations for the year 1850: Hain, Joseph, Handbuch der Statistik des Österreichischen Kaiserstaates, Vol. II (Vienna: Tendler, 1853), pp. 20, 36–44, 129–144, 222–223, 373–381, and 592–593Google Scholar; Neumann-Spallart, Franz Xaver, Übersichten der Weltwirtschaft (Vienna, 1859)Google Scholar; and Kautz, Gyula, Az ausztriai birodalom statistikája különös tekintettel Magyarországra [Statistics of the Austrian Empire with especial regard to Hungary] (Pest: Emich, 1855), pp. 255–258Google Scholar. For 1870 we used Pisztéry, Mór, Az Osztrák-Magyar Monarchia statisztikája [Statistics of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy] (Budapest: Eggenberger, 1874), p. 223Google Scholar; and Hunfalvy, Janos, A Magyar-Osztrák Monarchia rövid statisztikája [Brief Statistics on the Hungarian-Austrian Monarchy] (Budapest: Atheneum, 1874), p. 87Google Scholar. For 1900 we drew on Fellner, Frigyes, A nemzeti jövedelem becslése [The Estimation of the National Income]. Reprinted from the Közgazdasági Szemle [Economic Review], No. 12 (1903), pp. 28–29Google Scholar. For the years 1911–13 see note 32. As for our method of calculation for the 1850's, we worked on the assumption that the net output ratio for agriculture was 30 percent and that for industry 35 percent. For the 1870's these percentages were 35 percent and 38 percent, respectively. For 1900 and again for 1911–13 we adopted the ratios used by Fellner: 54 percent for agriculture and 42 percent for industry.

³⁴ Except for the fact that the output ratio is different for both Austria and Hungary in 1850 and 1870, the sources on which the figures in the table which follows are based are the same as for the preceding one.

³⁵ The figures for total horsepower output in 1863 may be found in Hunfalvy, A Magyar-Osztrák Monarchia rövid statisztikája, p. 124. For those in Hungary in the second decade of the twentieth century, see Szterényi, József and Ladányi, Jenö, A magyar ipar a világháboruban [Hungarian Industry during the World War] (Budapest: Franklin, 1934), pp. 36 and 40–41Google Scholar. For Austria we used the growth ratio of the number of factories from 1902 until 1913 as given in the Österreichisches Statistisches Handbuch, Vol. XXXII (1913), pp. 130–131, as well as for that of steam boilers. Ibid., pp. 132–134. We increased the figures for horsepower output in 1902 by the same ratio. The figures given above are, of course, only approximate.

³⁶ The above figures have been taken from the census statistics published in Tibor Kolossa, Az agrárnépesség társadalmi strukturájának történeti statisztikai vizsgálata az Osztrák-Magyar Monarchiában [A Historical Statistical Inquiry on the Social Structure of the Agrarian Population in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy] (manuscript).

³⁷ The figures for Austria have been partly based on Waizner, Das Volkseinkommen Alt-Österreichs; those for Hungary, on Fellner, “Die Verteilung des Volksvermögens und Volkseinkommens.”

³⁸ The territories which belonged to the new states after 1918. Czechoslovakia includes the Carpatho-Ukraine. The item “national income” does not include international payments and foreign trade balance.

³⁹ Clark, The Conditions of Economic Progress, pp. 99 and 151.

⁴⁰ Fellner, Frigyes, Ausztria és Magyarország nemzeti vagyona [The National Wealth of Austria and of Hungary] (Budapest: Pallas, 1913), p. 67Google Scholar; Fellner, Ausztria és Magyarország nemzeti jövedelme, p. 134.

⁴¹ Matlekovits, Közös vámterület, p. 69. In this volume Matlekovits criticizes the theory of uneven exchange without, however, in our opinion, presenting convincing arguments to disprove it.

⁴² A magyar mezögazdaság árhelyzete az utolsó évszázadban (1867–1963) in [Price Trends in Hungarian Agriculture during the Last Century, 1867–1963], in Statisztikai Idöszaki Közlemények [Statistical Periodical Publications of the Hungarian Central Office of Statistics], 1965–1966, pp. 31–32Google Scholar.

⁴³ Ibid., p. 41

⁴⁴ Berend, Iván T. and Ránki, György, Magyarország gyáripara az imperializmus elsö világháboru elötti idöszakában 1900–1914 [Hungary's Manufacturing Industry in the Era of Imperialism before War War I, 1900–1914] (Budapest: Szikra, 1955)Google Scholar. Especially see the table on pp. 296–297.

⁴⁵ Berend and Ránki, “Das Niveau der Industrie Ungarns,” pp. 275–276.

⁴⁶ Berend and Ránki, Magyarország gyáripara 1900–1914, pp. 296–297; Sándor, Vilmos, “A budapesti nagymalomipar kialakulása 1839–1880” [The Origin of the Large Milling Industry in Budapest, 1839–18801], in Tanulmányok Budapest Multjából [Studies out of Budapest's Past], Vol. XIII (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1959), pp. 315–422Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Berend and Ránki, “Das Niveau der Industrie Ungarns,” p. 282.

⁴⁸ Berend and Ránki, Magyarország gyáripara 1900–1914, p. 295.

⁴⁹ Pap, Magyar vámterület, p. 304.

⁵⁰ Ibid., pp. 263–275 and 285–304. Pap recounts in detail all the methods used by the Austrians in competing with the weaker Hungarian industrial enterprises.

⁵¹ Léderer, Emma, Az ipari kapitalizmus kezdetei Magyarországon [The Beginnings of Industrial Capitalism in Hungary] (Budapest: Közoktatásügyi Kiadó, 1952), pp. 75–119Google Scholar; Sándor, Nagyipari fejlödés Magyarországon, pp. 19–30; Berend and Ránki, Az ipari forradalom kérdéséhez Kelet-Európában.

⁵² Hanák, Péter and Hanák, Katalin, A Magyar Pamutipar története 1882–1960 [History of the Hungarian Cotton Industry, 1882–1960] (Budapest: Táncsics Kiadó, 1964), pp. 39, 47, 59, and 62–64Google Scholar.

⁵³ Sándor, Nagyipari fejlödés Magyarországon, pp. 77–78.

⁵⁴ On the basis of data given in Magyar Statisztikai Évkönyv [Hungarian Statistical Annual], Vol. XXI (1913), pp. 125–126Google Scholar; and Magyar Statisztikai Szemle [Hungarian Statistical Review], Vol. I, No. 7–8 (1923), pp. 298–301.

⁵⁵ See Rostow's, Walt W. brilliant analysis in his The Process of Economic Growth (2nd ed., New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1962), pp. 312–318Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Renner, Karl, Die Krise des Dualismus und das Ende der Deákistischen Episode in der Geschichte der Habsburgschen [sic] Monarchie (Vienna: Deuticke, 1904)Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ Program of the Christian Social Party accepted at Eggenburg in September, 1905, as published in the September 19, 1905, issue of the Reichspost. As for Francis Ferdinand's views, see the crown prince's letter to Berchtold on February 1, 1913, in Hantsch, Hugo, Leopold Graf Berchtold. Grandseigneur und Staatsmann (2 vols., Graz: Styria, 1963), Vol. I, pp. 388–390Google Scholar. See also Chlumecky, Leopold von, Erzherzog Franz Ferdinands Wirken und Wollen (Berlin: Verlag fur Kulturpolitik, 1929), pp. 246–250 and 255–256Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Priester, Eva, Kurze Geschichte Österreichs (Vienna: Globus-Verlag, 1949), pp. 540–542Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Mód, 400 év, pp. 217–220, 241, 244, and 255–258.

⁶⁰ May, Arthur J., The Hapsburg Monarchy, 1867–1914 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1951), pp. 31–45, 70, and 88–89Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Magyar minisztertanácsi jegyzökönyvek az elsö világháboru korából 1914–1918 [Protocols of the Hungarian Ministerial Council during the Era of the First World War], edited by Iványi, Emma (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiado, 1960), p. 21Google Scholar. The text of the regulation may be found in Magyar Országos Levéltár [Hungarian National Archive], Miniszterelnökség, 1897-VI, 3889, 11,511; and in Iványi, Magyar minisztertanácsi jegyzökönyvek az elsö világháboru korából, pp. 531–537. A similar regulation was also in force in Austria.

⁶² Iványi, Magyar minisztertanácsi jegyzökönyvek az elsö világháboru korából, pp. 27–28. The whole text is on pp. 538–542; the original is in Magyar Országos Levéltár, Miniszterelnökség, 1897-VI, 3889, 12,046.

⁶³ Iványi, Magyar minisztertan´csi jegyzökönyvek az elsö világháboru korából, p. 23. The original is in Magyar Országos Levéltár, Minisztertanácsi jegyzökönyvek [Protocols of the Ministerial Council], March 17, 1867.

⁶⁴ We have based our conclusions on how decisions were actually made on research which we have done in the archives of the bureau of the Hungarian minister-presidency, the Hungarian and common ministerial councils, and the imperial and royal cabinet bureau. In addition, we have made use of Komjáthy's, Miklós instructive study in the introduction to the Protokolle des Gemeinsamen Ministerrates des Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie (1914–1918), edited by Komjáthy, Miklós (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1966)Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ Wertheimer, Ede, Gróf Andrassy Gyula élete és kora [Life and Times of Count Gyula Andrassy] (3 vols., Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1910–1913), Vol. I, pp. 719–742Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ Protocol of the meeting of the common council of ministers on August 22, 1905, Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Ministerium des Aussern, Politisches Archiv, Interna, Liasse XL, Gemeinsame.

⁶⁷ See Friedrich Engels' very pertinent remark about the absolutist features of the ruling system of the monarchy. Engels to Adler, Viktor, October 11, 1893, Complete Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Vol. XXIX (Moscow: Partizdat, 1946), pp. 244–247 (in Russian)Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ Komjáthy, Miklós, “Die organisatorischen Probleme des Gemeinsamen Ministerrates im Spiegel der Ministerratsprotokolle,” in Studien zur Geschichte der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie, pp. 392–399Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ We agree with May, Arthur J. that the delegations were insignificant. They were certainly not organs of “Hungarian rule.” May, The Hapsburg Monarchy, p. 41Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ Tisza, István to Burián, István, July 28, 1914 (telegram), Református Egyetemes Konvent Levéltára [Archives of the General Convent of the Calvinist Church] (Budapest), Burián Papers, Copybook for telegrams, July 28, 1914Google Scholar. See also Hantsch, , Leopold Graf Berchtold, Vol. II, pp. 434 and 564Google Scholar.

⁷¹ Karl G., Hugelmann (ed.), Das Nationalitätenrecht des alten Ö;sterreich (Vienna: Braumüller, 1934), p. 280Google Scholar; Preradovich, Nikolaus, Die Führungsschichten in Österreich und Preussen, 1804–1918 (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1955), pp. 8–25Google Scholar.

⁷² Wertheimer, , Gróf Andrássy Gyula élete és kora, Vol. II, pp. 49–72, 83–103, and 313–349Google Scholar.

⁷³ Militär-Schematismus des Österreichischen Kaisertums f¨r das Jahr 1867; Schematismus für das k. u. k. Heer für das Jahr 1897; Hanak, , “Probleme der Krise des Dualismus,” in Studien zur Geschichte der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie, p. 352Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ Hanák, “Probleme der Krise des Dualismus,”pp. 345–346.

⁷⁵ Dolmányos, István, A magyar parlamenti ellenzék történetéböl (1901–1904) [Out of the History of the Hungarian Parliamentary Opposition, 1901–1904] (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1963), pp. 161–163Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Grata, , A dualizmus kora, Vol. I, pp. 243–250Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Mérey, Klára, A mezögazdasági munkásság mozgalmai a Dunántulon 1905–1907-ben [The Movements of the Agricultural Workers in Trans-Danubia in 1905–1907] (Budapest: Szikra, 1956), p. 80Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Dolmányos, A magyar parlamenti ellenzék történetéböl, pp. 177–186; Magyarország története [History of Hungary], edited by Molnár, Erik, Pamlényi, Ervin, and Székely, György (2 vols., Budapest: Gondolat Kiadó, 1964), Vol. II, pp. 132–133 and 155Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Pap, Magyar vámterület, p. 312.

⁸⁰ Nagy, Péter, Szabó Dezsö (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1964), pp. 14–15Google Scholar.

⁸¹ Magyarország története, Vol. II, pp. 184–186 and 194–195Google Scholar.