Frankfurt Reform Act

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The German Bund only had one body, the Bundestag, representing the member states

The Frankfurt Reform Act was the document that was before the Frankfurt Fürstentag on September 1, 1863. In it Austria had described how the German Confederation should be reformed . The reform act represents the last major reform proposal: it failed due to resistance from Prussia , but also from the other states that feared Austrian domination without Prussia.

The proposals of the reform act had moved the German Confederation more in the direction of a federal state . The only body so far, the Bundestag , would have been divided into a government (Federal Directorate) and several representative bodies. A federal court would have been added. Above all, the federal purpose should be expanded, after foreign policy and security to include the welfare of the German people and the standardization of law.

background

After Prussia prevented the introduction of delegate assemblies in the German Confederation, Austria began a major reform plan. Ludwig von Biegeleben , a former undersecretary of the provisional central authority , drafted the draft, the most comprehensive and detailed since 1849. The Austrian government decided on a version on July 9, 1863, which was to be presented to a meeting of the German princes in Frankfurt.

Starting on August 16, 1863, this Frankfurt Fürstentag brought together 26 of the 31 princes and mayors of the free cities. 24 of them approved the reform act. The agreement should only be binding as long as those absent had not definitely refused. With this, the princes initiated the failure of the reforms: the small and medium-sized states were afraid that Austria's supremacy would be strengthened.

content

Organization of the German Confederation according to the ideas of the Frankfurt Reform Act

Federal purpose

The reform act of September 1, 1863 initially expanded the federal purpose considerably. In addition to external and internal security, the tasks should also include the promotion of welfare and the standardization of law in Germany. The federal government should be allowed to enact its own laws, and the procedure for uniform laws on state legislatures should be facilitated (for laws that were state laws, but were enacted identically in all states). So it was generally about moving the federal government more towards a state.

In contrast to reform proposals in the years 1848–1851, the scope of the federal territory should not be expanded. The regulations of the reform act were based on the previous scope and emphasized that, for example, the federal deputies had to be elected for those parts of Austria and Prussia that also belonged to the federal government.

Federal Directorate

The federal government was to have an executive in the form of a federal directorate, an organ made up of several people (in earlier plans, “directorate” was the expression for a collective federal head ). Austria originally wanted the Federal Directorate to have five members: one each representing Austria, Prussia and Bavaria, plus a fourth and a fifth member who would represent a different state every three or six years. However, the other states in Frankfurt enforced an increase in the number of members at the Fürstentag: In addition to the permanent members Austria, Prussia and Bavaria, there should be a fourth position for Saxony, Hanover and Württemberg, with annual changes between these three kingdoms. A fifth and a sixth position would have to be filled for three years from two different groups in the remaining countries.

The Federal Directorate would have had its seat in Frankfurt am Main . The members should be appointed by the princes of the states represented and decide in the board of directors with a simple majority of votes. The board of directors would have had commissions for subjects such as home affairs, finance, etc. The Austrian representative should chair the board of directors; This ignored Prussia's demand that the chairmanship between Austria and Prussia should change regularly (so-called alternate). In the future, according to Ernst Rudolf Huber, ministries could have developed from the commissions.

The individual states would have continued to be responsible for the administration, for the maintenance of order and law, and for the formation of troops. Nonetheless, the Board of Directors should exercise all executive powers in these areas. It was allowed to exercise the powers of the Federal War Constitution, to ensure that the individual states fulfill their military duties, unify the armies and come to the aid of the individual states in the event of unrest. In addition, the board of directors should represent the federal government under international law. International treaties would have required the approval of other organs such as the Princely Council (or, depending on the content of the Federal Council or the Assembly of Federal Members).

Representative bodies

Cartoon about the proposed new parliament building with the new organs

The old Federal Assembly (Bundestag) would have been replaced by three organs, which would have represented the member states in different ways:

  • Federal Council: This was modeled on the narrow council of the Bundestag, but with 21 instead of the previous 17 votes (three each for Austria and Prussia). So it would have been a permanent envoy congress with representatives from the individual states. The members of the Federal Directorate should also be members of the Federal Council. The Federal Council decided with a simple majority (war and peace: two thirds; constitutional amendments: unanimity).
  • Assembly of Federal Deputies (Assembly of Deputies): The parliaments of the individual states elected deputies to this assembly with 302 members. 75 each were to come from Austria and Prussia, 27 from Bavaria, 15 each from the other kingdoms of Saxony, Hanover and Württemberg, etc. The assembly met publicly, the members of parliament had a free mandate and decided with a simple majority (for constitutional changes: three quarters) .
  • Princely Assembly (Princely Council): This would have been an assembly of all sovereign princes as well as the magistrates of the four free cities.

The assembly of federal representatives and the assembly of princes would have met every three years. The Federal Council would have primarily had an advisory role; however, his formal approval was required for international treaties, declarations of war and peace agreements, legislative initiatives (he could therefore propose new laws) and certain budget and matricular issues. The assembly of deputies was intended to be the main legislator, but laws would also have required the approval of the assembly of princes. Presumably, however, the assembly of princes would in fact have stepped back behind the Bundesrat, through which the states had carried out practical policy.

Federal court

Territory of the German Confederation

When the federal government was founded, a Supreme Federal Court should actually have been set up. Back then, Bavaria and Württemberg insisted on their judicial sovereignty and prevented the court.

According to the reform act, a federal court should judge under old Roman law on:

  • private law claims against the federal government
  • Private law claims against several member states, if it was unclear which was responsible
  • private law claims against the sovereign of a member state, if there was no place of jurisdiction in this
  • Claims by private individuals if a member state refuses to administer justice
  • Claims between states
  • Disputes which, according to the constitution of a member state and with the consent of the Directory and Federal Council, had to be decided by the Federal Court

The federal court should have an arbitration role in:

  • all other disputes between member states
  • Disputes between ruling royal houses of member states, such as the succession to the throne
  • Violation of the rights of subjects and corporations (Art. 12–18 German Federal Act) by member states
  • Disputes between the governments and representative bodies of member states over the state constitution

The federal court should meet in Frankfurt. It would have had a president, two vice-presidents, and twelve full assessors. In the case of arbitration decisions between the government and the parliament of a member state, twelve extraordinary assessors would have been added.

Reactions

"Symbolographic-historical tableau", Vinzenz Katzler on the Fürstentag

The Prussian King Wilhelm demanded, in the words of Ernst Rudolf Huber , "veto, parity and direct popular elections in the Federation". The veto meant that Austria and Prussia should be able to prevent the federal government from declaring war as long as the federal territory itself was not attacked. If Austria's possessions in Italy or Hungary were attacked, Prussia did not want to have to support Austria. Prussia also demanded the alternate , alternating chairmanship with Austria, which would have led to a dualistic (here meant: Austro-Prussian) supremacy in the Federation. Thirdly, the federal government should have a directly elected parliament, which would have made the relatively high population of Prussia more effective.

Austria had repeatedly refused such demands and could now hardly change its mind. However, the other states did not want to give up Prussia, as this would have strengthened Austrian supremacy. They would have accepted an alternative much sooner. The (Greater German-minded) German Reform Association approved the reform act in principle, but demanded some safeguards for the freedom of Germans. The national association, however, rejected the act because the proposed reform did not go far enough. But he also criticized Prussia, because after previous experiences ( constitutional conflict ) with Bismarck's government one could not believe in their counter-proposals. It was believed that the elected federal parliament was only proposed for tactical reasons.

rating

Ernst Rudolf Huber sees the Austrian reform plan as an intermediate solution between the federal act of 1815 and the federal constitution of 1849 . Austria endeavored to isolate Prussia and to reverse Gagern's double league , as it were: Prussia was not supposed to form a small German federal state with the other states, which would have been linked to Austria via another league. Instead, Austria wanted to form a closer confederation with the other states, which would have been linked to Prussia via another confederation. If Prussia had opposed this solution, Austria would have prepared a “second Olomouc ”, a diplomatic defeat and imposition of its own ideas.

According to Michael Kotulla , all reform proposals in the German Confederation had been proposed by the great powers in order to expand their own position of power. The Frankfurt Reform Act was the “last significant attempt at reform”. Soon, however, the great powers Austria and Prussia were working together again in the German-Danish War .

See also

Web links

supporting documents

  1. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume III: Bismarck and the realm . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, pp. 419/420.
  2. ^ Michael Kotulla: German constitutional history. From the Old Reich to Weimar (1495–1934) . Springer, Berlin 2008, p. 470.
  3. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume III: Bismarck and the realm . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, p. 427.
  4. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume III: Bismarck and the realm . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, pp. 427/428.
  5. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume III: Bismarck and the realm . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, p. 428.
  6. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume III: Bismarck and the realm . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, pp. 428/429.
  7. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume III: Bismarck and the realm . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, pp. 429/430.
  8. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume III: Bismarck and the realm . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, p. 430.
  9. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume III: Bismarck and the realm . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, pp. 430/431.
  10. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume III: Bismarck and the realm . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, pp. 429-432.
  11. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789 . Volume I: Reform and Restoration 1789 to 1830 . 2nd edition, Verlag W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart [ua] 1967, p. 616/617.
  12. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume III: Bismarck and the realm . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, pp. 431/432.
  13. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume III: Bismarck and the realm . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, p. 432/433.
  14. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume III: Bismarck and the realm . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, p. 433.
  15. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume III: Bismarck and the realm . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, p. 426.
  16. ^ Ernst Rudolf Huber: German constitutional history since 1789. Volume III: Bismarck and the realm . 3rd edition, W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart a. a. 1988, pp. 420/421.
  17. ^ Michael Kotulla: German constitutional history. From the Old Reich to Weimar (1495–1934) . Springer, Berlin 2008, p. 471.