General Editor Stefan Malfer notes in his foreword that the second volume of Abteilung II: Das Ministerium Schwarzenberg is the twentieth volume of documentary texts that the Österreichisches Ost- und Südosteuropa-Institut has published since 1970 in its series on the Protocols of the Austrian Council of Ministers from 1848 to 1867. Funding has been secured to complete publication of the series, which by now is acknowledged as a historiographical duty. The parallel publication of the ministerial protocols of the First and Second Republics, as well as of the era from the Compromise of 1867 to 1918, attests to this fact.

Volume II verifies that January through April 1850 constituted the first “clearly post-revolutionary” (vii) period in office for Prince Felix Schwarzenberg and his colleagues, who became the Habsburg monarchy's “responsible ministry” in November 1848. With the August 1849 capitulation of Hungary and Venice and the waning of revolutionary fervor in Germany, the ministers energetically sought to overcome the lethargy of pre-March by introducing a surge of modernization across the empire. Ministerial sessions occurred almost daily, often with up to nineteen agenda items, spearheaded by proposals from the industrious interior minister Alexander Bach and the finance minister Philipp Freiherr von Krauss. Reforms “from above,” intended not only to restore empire-wide order but also to improve the economic infrastructure of the Gesamtstaat, exemplified the government's conviction that a rejuvenated “New Order in Austria” (Neugestaltung Österreichs) would overcome the revolutionary legacy, contain middle-class political aspirations, and secure monarchical power throughout the Habsburg realm.

Resolving the financial and political consequences of the years 1848–49 remained a pressing task. The ministers consulted repeatedly about the presence of Hungarian refugees in Turkey, over the arbitrary actions in Hungary of military and civil governor General Julius Freiherr von Haynau, and about the necessity to reorganize state finances and regain public trust by cutting military expenses and implementing empire-wide tax reform. Aside from restoring diplomatic relations with Turkey in April, the German question dominated 1850 foreign policy. Differences between Vienna and Berlin made reducing military expenses increasingly unthinkable and ultimately would derail Krauss's plans for fiscal reform. Meanwhile, proposals concerning income and stamp taxes, railway and telegraph construction, provincial constitutions, municipal government in Vienna, civil and military personnel, pensions, and honors, plus pardons for death sentences, characterized the ministerial agenda.

A key topic in the protocols was the altered relationship between the Habsburg state and Danubian religious communities. The events of 1848–49, promised freedoms, a “constitutional” Reichstag, and a Neugestaltung of the political and social order called for updated post-Josephine religious relationships. In 1849 and 1850, Austria's first Roman Catholic bishops' conference convened in Vienna, in which the minister president's brother, Cardinal Friedrich Schwarzenberg, and the emperor's tutor, Bishop Joseph Othmar von Rauscher, played major conservative roles. In 1849 Vienna hosted a synod of Protestant Austrian and Hungarian superintendents (Superintendenten), which called for complete Protestant equality with the empire's Roman Catholics. In 1850 an assembly of Orthodox bishops, representing the empire's religiously active and rival Serbs and Romanians, met in the Habsburg capital but reached no consensus. An 1850–51 convocation in Prague of Jewish notables called for an updated statute to end all regional discrimination and special taxes on Jewish communities. Religious ferment surfaced in the April 1850 cabinet deliberations when the minister of religion and education, Count Leo Thun-Hohenstein, and Emperor Francis Joseph insisted on restoring Catholic privileges despite the reluctance of other ministers. This instance was silenced by post-1851 neoabsolutism and the 1855 Concordat, but it would resume with liberating results a decade later.

The third volume in this series provides ample evidence that the Schwarzenberg ministry did not relax after April. Between 1 May and 30 September 1850, the cabinet convened seventy-two times—almost every other day. A single two-week pause came in May, when Francis Joseph made a state visit to Trieste. His unusually warm reception by the cheering populace, a rare phenomenon for the young emperor, arose from his prior sanctioning on 12 April 1850 of a “constitution for the imperial free city.” This positive sign reflected that the ministers, especially Interior Minister Bach, were efficiently promoting reforms envisioned by Bach's predecessor, Count Franz Stadion, the principal advocate of the 4 March 1849 unitary Reich constitution, provincial constitutions, and progressive community laws (Gemeindegesetze).

From spring through September 1850, the government concentrated on domestic reform projects, the tense situation in Hungary, and the continuing German question. Initially work on the Landes-, Kreis-, Bezirks-, and Ortsgemeindeordnungen (provincial, circle, district, and municipal community ordinances) took precedence. It waned when consensus for the more politically and ethnically complex provincial constitutions proved unattainable. Ultimately the circle and district ordinances were abandoned, which in effect enhanced the future role of state administration rather than local freedoms. The protocols nonetheless clarify the intent of the ministry's reforms “from above.” Most Cisleithanian provincial constitutions (Landesverfassungen), which provided for public participation, were drafted, debated, sanctioned, and ceremoniously decreed. They simply were not implemented. Only Trieste and the Military Frontiers received definitive statutes. Much-debated constitutions for Galicia and Bukovina received Francis Joseph's sanction on 29 September. The same was discussed for Lombardo-Venetia but never sanctioned. A revised statute in the March Constitution promised to Hungary was not debated until late 1851, concurrently with the advent of neoabsolutism. Practical necessity, however, mandated that municipal ordinances (Gemeindeordnungen) for Vienna, Prague, Graz, Trieste, Lemberg, Agram, and other key cities be implemented “provisionally” (dependent on a future electoral census), and these 1850 ordinances in part regulated Austrian municipal administration for decades. Tables (xi–xiii) and citations to pertinent protocols clarify the 1849–50 Landesverfassungen and provisional Gemeindeordnungen. Other noteworthy measures were the modernization of civil and criminal court procedure, reforms for education and universities, and the extension of chambers of commerce (Handelskammern) throughout the Habsburg state.

Hungary in 1850 was under occupation, symbolized by military and civil governor Julius Freiherr von Haynau, whose harsh policies ran counter to the ministry's desired reconciliation and integration of Hungarian territories into a reformed Gesamtmonarchie. Haynau disregarded Bach's instructions to cease collecting forced fiscal “contributions” from Hungary's Jewish population, his impressment of former honvéd officers into the imperial army as simple soldiers, his transfer of “compromised” civilians from civil to military courts, and his reluctance to commute sentences even of individuals who had received imperial pardons. Haynau's arbitrary conduct slighted not only Bach but also the authority of the ministry and the emperor. This power struggle climaxed on 6 June 1850 when a unanimous ministry, with Francis Joseph present, removed and retired the authoritarian general. Thereafter, and despite Magyar resistance, judicial, fiscal, and administrative reforms commenced across Hungary, from Croatia to Transylvania. Significantly, on 1 October 1850, the ministry abolished the customs barrier between Cisleithanian Austria and the Lands of the Crown St. Stephen.

Both volumes illuminate the complex Austro-Prussian duel for primacy in Germany. Given Habsburg preoccupation with the 1848–49 fighting and its aftermath in Hungary and Italy, Austrian weakness by early 1850 had tilted the political advantage in German affairs toward Prussia. In September 1849, Vienna and Berlin had established an “interim” central commission, lasting until 1 May 1850, which appeared to grant Prussia parity with Austria. In fact, Prussia, Saxony, and Hanover formed a kleindeutsch German union, which might conclude a wider alliance with Austria. Commerce Minister Karl Freiherr von Bruck riposted in October 1849 by proposing a customs union of all German states, including Gesamtösterreich. The elections of January 1850 enabled a union constitutional assembly to convene in February. Schwarzenberg protested this Prussian-inspired threat to Austria's German primacy and diplomatically encouraged Bavaria, Württemberg, and now hesitating Saxony and Hanover to oppose Prussia's union project. After Ministerrat consultations (28 February and 8 March), on 13 March 1850 Austria joined the Four Kings' League (Vierkönigsbund). Further Austro-Prussian diplomatic jousting produced only stalemate, which both states sought to break.

Prussia called the union princes to Berlin on 8 May 1850 to advise on the union's future. Austria, as presiding power in the lapsed German Confederation (Deutsche Bund) and in accord with the middle states, summoned the Confederation Diet to reconvene in Frankfurt on 10 May to consult on restructuring Germany. Prussia contested Austria's right to convene the Bund. Austria in turn insisted that Prussia dissolve the German Union. Prussia twice suspended the union's constitution but declined to abandon the union. As tensions rose, several middle states defected, including Electoral Hesse (Kurhesse). In Frankfurt the rump Confederation Diet likewise had membership difficulties, while direct negotiations between Berlin and Vienna caused the middle states to sense that Austria and Prussia sought a dual accord at their expense.

Conflict between the German Confederation and the German Union peaked in September 1850 with the so-called Electoral Hesse “constitutional conflict.” Although a constitution remained in effect in Electoral Hesse, in early 1850 the prince replaced the liberal government with conservatives who broke with the assembly. When the government attempted to impose its budget and taxes, many civil servants and military officers disavowed both government and prince. The prince appealed to the confederation for a federal execution (Bundesexekution), to which it agreed on 21 September. Berlin, which still considered Electoral Hesse a member of the German Union—and sensitive to its strategic geographic location astride communication lines connecting Prussia with its Rhineland provinces—warned Vienna against confederation intervention. Ministerrat protocols of 26 and 27 September record that Schwarzenberg and Francis Joseph consulted the cabinet and that a united ministry sharply rejected Prussian protests against a federal execution. Thereafter, confederation and Prussian troops prepared to enter Electoral Hesse.

Throughout 1850 Austria recovered political strength. The reverse occurred in Prussia. Initially strong with the launching of its German Union, Prussia had great influence that waned as the middle German states, prompted by Austria, cautiously distanced themselves from the German Union. Austria demonstrated its primacy, since against the expressed will of Prussia it implemented a federal execution in “unruly” Electoral Hesse. This action revitalized the German Confederation, further weakening the liberal movement. Vienna also secured imperial Russia's diplomatic support against an isolated Prussia. Scholars must await publication of the next volume of protocols to gain further insight into the controversial 29 November 1850 Punctation of Olmütz and the subsequent denouement at the December 1850–May 1851 Dresden Conference.

These two volumes, as well as others in this series, display meticulous editing, cross-referencing, and the collaboration of Austrian and Hungarian scholars. Succinct introductory analytical essays by Thomas Kletečka, Anatol Schmied-Kowarzik, and Andreas Gottsmann, explanatory footnotes, historiographical bibliographies, definitions of abbreviations and antiquated expressions, identification of participating ministers, precise chronological and topical protocol summaries, and extensive indexes supplement the texts. Access to these printed, edited, and legible documentary sources is important for scholars seeking historical understanding of the political, administrative, fiscal, socioeconomic, and diplomatic issues that in 1850 confronted the “responsible” Schwarzenberg ministry.