ARTICLE IX. The Two Letters-Patent of King Ernest. Weissmüller: Hanover in seinen socialen, politischen und industriellen Beziehungen. (The social, political and industrial conditions of Hanover.) Göttingen, 1822. C. Stüve: Ueber die jetzige Lage des Königreichs Hanover. (The present condition of the kingdom of Hanover.) Jena, Fromman, 1832. S.P.Gans: Verhandlungen über die öffentlichen Angelegenheiten des Königreichs Hanover. (Public transactions of Hanover.) S. P. Gans: Rechtlicher Zustand des Königreichs Hanover. (State of the law in Hanover.) Altona, J. T. Hamerich, 1832. Charles d'Este (the ex-duke of Brunswick): Trente Ans de la tion against the Münster ministry.) Göttingen, 1831. F.Ch. Schlosser: Beiträge über die Lobredner und Tadler Napoleons. (On the panegyrists and detractors of Napoleon.) Frankfurt, 1836. (Passim for the condition of Hanover under the French administration.) Gustav Kombst: Authentische Actenstücke aus den Archiven des Deutschen Bundes. (Authentic state-papers from the archives of the German Diet.) Strasburg, 1835. G. Kombst: Der Deutsche Bundestag gegen Ende 1832. (The German Diet at the end of 1832.) Strasburg, 1836*. SHORT as the time is which has passed since the Hanoverians were blessed with the accession of King Ernest, the history of his Majesty's reign exhibits already two distinct periods, each * We had already finished our article, when a friend pointed out to us four other publications which had escaped our notice. It was too late for us to bespeak them. But as they were recommended to us as being of merit, we subjoin their titles:Von Rehberg: Diverse politische Schriften. (Miscellaneous essays on political subjects.) Baldungen (burgomaster of Münden): Erörterungen über den Verfassungs-entwurf. (Examination of the new project of Constitution.) G. von Struve: Commentar zu dem Entwurf. (Commentaries on the project of Constitution.) Dr. Wurm: Die Gründe des Patents vom November 1. (Examination of the arguments set forth in the letters-patent of November 1.) Hamburg, 1837. of which was introduced by letters-patent, the first dated the 5th of July, and the second the 1st of November. After the first King Ernest seemed inclined to retrace his steps; the letters-patent were so worded as to permit a retreat; the second settled the subject so completely as not to allow of any doubt. The Hanoverian constitution is abrogated; for what period, depends on circumstances which time will bring to light. As each of these two periods has its separate history, we cannot avoid separating them, treating one after the other. And first, the letters-patent of the 5th of July 1837. King William the Good died the 20th of June. On the 28th of the same month the duke of Cumberland, now King of Hanover, arrived in his capital. The states of the kingdom, which were just sitting, appointed a deputation to bring before His Majesty their sentiments of attachment and fidelity. The deputation was refused admittance, and the Chambers were almost immediately prorogued. By paragraph 13 of the constitution of Hanover, the new king was bound to announce his accession by letters-patent, and to pledge in turn his royal word faithfully to maintain the constitution. King Ernest complied with his obligations by issuing the following letters patent: "Ernest Augustus, by the grace of God king of Hanover, prince royal of Great Britain and Ireland, duke of Cumberland, Brunswick and Luneburgh, &c. It has pleased the Almighty to call out of the world, on the 20th of June, our late revered brother, the most mighty and most puissant prince, William IV., king of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and also king of Hanover, and thereby to cast us, our royal house and all faithful subjects, into the most profound affliction. "Now as, by virtue of the rights of primogeniture prevailing in our royal house, the succession to the government of our kingdom of Hanover has fallen to us, we have already entered upon it with all our hereditary rights. We are pleased hereby to make the same known, and have full confidence in all our right spiritual and temporal servants, vassals and subjects, that they will pay to us their bounden duty, fidelity and obedience, and always be devoted to us with sincere attachment. On the other hand, we assure all of our royal benevolence and favour, and of our sovereign protection, and shall make it the constant object of our earnest wishes and efforts paternally to promote in every sensible manner the happiness and the prosperity of the subjects confided to us by Divine Providence. This being the object of our endeavours, we have been convinced that in many points the constitution does not correspond with our wishes, which are solely directed to promote the good of our faithful subjects. Being resolved shortly to make known to our faithful people our views on this most important subject, we do not hesitate to declare that we cannot find in the constitution, (which is neither in form nor substance binding on us,) a sufficient guarantee for the permanent prosperity of our faithful subjects, whose welfare it will be our most earnest endeavours to promote, according to the duties imposed on us by Divine Providence. Meantime, it is far from our intention to take our royal resolution upon this important matter without a careful examination of all the circumstances. It is on the contrary our royal will to devote the most careful attention to the question whether and how far a modification of the constitution must take place, or whether the constitution should be brought back to what it was before the promulgation of the present constitution. Our faithful subjects firmly enjoyed happiness and satisfaction under the ancient hereditary constitution of the kingdom. A bond of attachment and loyalty, and a confidence in their sovereign, descending from generation to generation, promoted the happiness of the ruler and the welfare of the subjects. We most earnestly wish to establish such a happy state of things. "We have not required our state and cabinet ministers, who took their oaths according to the constitution, to circulate these letters-patent, but have caused them to be countersigned by our state and cabinet minister Von Schele, who has caused them to take the oath to us, omitting the obligation to observe the constitution. We trust to the ancient affection and loyalty of our Hanoverian people to their sovereigns, that all our beloved subjects will await calmly and with full confidence in our benevolent intentions our consideration of the above question, and be convinced that in the consideration we shall only seek their advantage. At the same time, till further orders, all shall continue in our kingdom of Hanover in its present course; and we command that this our proclamation shall be posted in all public places, and afterwards sent back to our cabinet ministry with a certificate of its having been published as above. Two passages in this strange document deserve comment. "The constitution is neither in form nor substance binding on us." Does not that mean, the constitution will be sent after the deputies? "We shall devote the most careful at"tention to the question, whether a modification of the con"stitution must take place, or whether the constitution should "be brought back to the ancient hereditary constitution of "the kingdom." Does not that mean, we shall either give a new constitution to our own liking, or else revive the old one? According to the rules of climax (for it would be disrespectful to suppose His Majesty capable of a bathos,) King Ernest inclined to the latter part of his hypothetical disjunctive assertion. And what could he mean by his "hereditary constitution of the kingdom?" It is difficult to say. The kingdom of Hanover was created in 1815 at the Congress of Vienna, and a newly-born country seldom has an hereditary constitution. Did he mean perhaps the constitution it had immediately before its creation? The kingdom of Hanover was taken from the French kingdom of Westphalia, and we really only remember a constitution which Napoleon abolished in the month of Brumaire, but none which he promulgated, at least for Westphalia. Or did His Majesty King Ernest understand under his hereditary constitution that which the country had before the French occupation? Then he ought to have said constitutions, and not constitution, for the patrimony of the former electors of Hanover formed only a small part of the new kingdom, the rest being composed of a number of countries and towns, each of which, before the French revolution, had had its own peculiar constitution. There were free towns, republican confederacies, abbeys, bishoprics, &c., &c.; and for His Majesty to render to each its former constitution would have been nothing more nor less than to deprive himself of the sovereignty over half his territory. We cannot suppose that such was his intention. Or did His Majesty mean the constitution of the hereditary possessions of the House of Hanover? They likewise consisted of different parts, which had different constitutions. But say that any one of these was the hereditary constitution he meant. Well, whichever this constitution was, it had undergone many changes in the course of centuries; and as His Majesty omitted to mention a date, it would be difficult for any person besides himself to find out the exact constitution which he meant. only remember, not a constitution, but an institution, which was always hereditary in the dominions of the electors of Hanover, serfage. Is it that he meant? We should have given a word of praise to the great veneration His Majesty professes in his letters-patent, for the sanctity of an oath, had not Mr. O'Connell, during the discussion on the Orange lodges, already given him a character on this point. We The letters-patent could not be issued unless countersigned by a minister. His Majesty, as he said himself, did not re quire the state and cabinet ministers he found in office to do this: he chose a new minister expressly for the purpose. This was M. von Schele, formerly French prefect of Osnabrück, and lately one of the leaders of the opposition in the Hanoverian House of Lords, a second Lyndhurst without indeed the talent. The new minister could not enter upon his function, unless sworn in, like all other public functionaries in Hanover. M. Hoppenstedt, one of the first members of the ministry, was sent for to administer the oath. When he arrived, His Majesty took the formula from him to cancel one phrase which contained the obligation of faithfully maintaining the constitution. The minister immediately refused to administer the oath, and His Majesty was obliged to undergo the task himself. The letters-patent were issued, and he retired to repose on his laurels. Who could say the action was unlawful? His subjects? He had an army to teach them reason. A supreme federal tribunal had indeed been very recently established by the German confederation at Frankfort, with the mission to judge of differences which should arise between a sovereign of the German confederation and his estates; but the rule of law is, "where there is no plaintiff, there is no judge." His subjects could not vote resolutions at a public meeting, for public meetings are forbidden in Germany. The estates could not articulate a complaint, for they had been prorogued. His Majesty was satisfied and thought that all was good; but it was written that he should be mistaken. The General Gazette of Cassel, a neighbouring state, remonstrated in a calm and well-sustained article: the Gazette of Augsburg followed, the German Courier, the General Gazette of Hessen and a great many others joined. These articles sorely displeased His Majesty, who immediately bespoke new letters-patent, with the intention of silencing the newspaper rabble by a bold quos ego. The letters were prepared by the end of July: the new minister, Von Schele, in a full meeting of the ministers, produced and read them, while the King watched the impression they would produce on the features of his councillors. They were silent for a while; at last four of them, one after the other, Messrs. |