The
Hungarian Question in the British Parliament
(Excerpts)
In the Introduction, Roland E. L. Vaughan
Williams K. C. writes:
This collection of speeches made in the House
of Lords and the House of Commons at various times between 1919 and 1930
concerning Hungary has been delivered, and was pub-lished, with the object
of helping public opinion to come to a just conclusion as to the Treaty
of Trianon and its consequences.
No one will today seriously deny that the
Treaty of Trianon violated the principle of self-determination. Three and
a half million Hungarians were left outside Treaty Hungary, forming in
several instances solid "blocks" immediately adjoining the new frontier.
In recent years the principle of self-determination has fallen into some
discredit, but it was the principle which the Allies invoked during the
war and on which the peace treaties were avowedly based. It was applied
rigorously whenever it told against Hungary, but subordinated to other
considerations whenever it told inconveniently in favour of Hungary. Can
it be said that the course actually taken has created a satisfactory state
of things? As a palliative to this violation of the doctrine of self-determination,
the Minority Treaties were insisted on by the Great Powers at the Peace
Conference. They were a condition of the transfer of territory to the Succession
States. In the case of the territories detached from Hungary the racial
"minorities" included not only Magyars but also Saxons and Swabians. All
these races are today united in protesting that the Minority Treaties have
failed to secure for them elementary justice. I do not think any fair-minded
person who has gone at all into the merits of the question will today deny
that some revision of the Trianon Treaty is imperative, not only in the
interest of peace and justice but also for the safety of Europe.
Lord Newton, House of Lords,
February 25th, 1920:
I cannot refrain from pointing out that in
some respects Hungary seems to have suffered more than any other
country that participated in the War. It is proposed by the Treaty
to diminish her territory by two-thirds; it is proposed to take away most
of the big towns; the population will be reduced from something between
17 millions and 18 millions to little more than 7 millions. Hungary will
lose nearly all its minerals and its ores, more than half its corn and
maize-producing districts; it will lose a greatportion of the horse and
cattle-breeding districts; and worse than all, between
3 millions and
4 millions genuine Hungarian Magyars will be transferred to alien
countries without having any chance whatever of pronouncing an opinion
on the subject. I venture to think that of all the belligerents against
whom we contended, Hungary is the one which should make the greatest appeal
to our sympathy.
Hungary never wanted war. ..
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy,
House of Commons, April 20th, 1921:
If the framers of this Peace Treaty are
so satisfied with its boundaries, it seems to me to be a very great mistake
that they did not agree to adopt the plebiscite for its determination.
If it is right to hold a plebiscite for Schleswig-Holstein or for the determination
of the frontiers of Upper Silesia, it is equally right to hold one for
the frontiers of Hungary.
I wish to point out to the House that this
Peace Treaty which we are asked to pass this afternoon creates some half-dozen
Alsace-Lorraines on the frontiers of Hungary, if the information we get
is correct. If it is incorrect it could have been proved by a plebiscite,
and I say one should have been held.
I wish particularly to draw the attention
of hon. Members to one or two of the areas where real injustice has been
done, and may I in doing so say that I share my hon. and gallant Friend's
indignation at the action of the present Hungarian Government? All my sympathies
are with the subject races emancipa-ted from the old Austro-Hungarian Empire.
But in drawing the frontiers we must not allow our prejudices and our sentiments,
our likes for this people, our sympathy for that people or our dislike
of other people to in any way mould our actions in laying down these new
frontiers. I will first draw the attention of hon. Members to the case
of the district of Pressbourg (as Bratislava became capital of Slovakia)
on the Danube and of Érsekújvár. This, as hon. Members
may be aware, is territory predominantly inhabited by Magyars. It has been
handed over to the new Czecho-Slovak State in order that it should have
a riparian frontier on the Danube... I trust, too, that this historic State
of Pressburg, with its normal Magyar population and old associations with
Hungary, will not be handed over to alien rule. ...
There is another very bad irredenta in the
Kassa -- part of the northern frontier, partly composed of Magyars and
partially of Slovaks. There is a solid block of 300,000 or 400,000 Magyars
with a little interspersion of other races, who are mostly German. I think
the Slovak frontier has been drawn too much in favour of the Czecho-Slovakian
States, and I contend that a plebiscite should have been taken there. ...
The hon. Gentleman did admit that there seemed
to be hardship to the Szeklers (Transylvanian Hungarians) in this matter.
There you have an island with a Magyar population which has been incorporated
in Rumania. I admit that the difficulties there are very great. There seem
to me, however, to have been two alternatives which might have been followed.
One was to run a corridor from Kolozsvár area and the other was
to allow the Szeklers to remain in the Hungarian Kingdom. I admit there
would have been great economic difficult-ies in doing that, but I think
it would have been better if these unfortunate Szeklers could have been
given autonomy. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, these unfortunate people
have been most harshly treated by the Rumanians. The University of Kolozsvár
has been closed up, the professors driven away, and the students dispersed.
...
I think that a much larger measure of autonomy
might have been given to the Magyar-inhabited regions in Transylvania.
The district of Szatmár has been handed over, although I believe
it is predominantly Hungarian.
I do not want to spend any more time on these
irredentas, except that I think a real case has been made out for a plebiscite.
If a plebiscite is not taken, the Magyar people will always be discontented,
and many thousands of people --I have seen the figure put at 3 million
Magyars-- will be groaning under the sense of injustice at being bartered
away like so many cattle to alien rulers. ... There is one further objection
which I must take to the Treaty in justifying my vote against it. To realise
these facts fully it is necessary to take a map of Hungary showing the
railways, and to put on it a tracing showing the new boundaries; and also
to take other maps showing the waterways and the roads and other communications,
and put similar tracings on them, and, if possible, on other maps showing
the physical features of the country -- the mountains and so on. It will
then be seen that the new frontiers completely cut across the whole economic
life of the former Hungary... At these new frontiers there is all the paraphernalia
of customs, prohibitions, anti-dumping regulations, and fiscal measures
of all sorts, and trade is absolutely stopped. It was not sufficient to
allow these people in their new territories complete fiscal freedom and
to give them carte blanche to cut off the trade of their neighbours. They
are injuring themselves and each other. I feel that those who drew up this
Treaty paid too much attention to the political aspect and too little to
the economic aspect: and this is not the only Treaty in which that difficulty
is visible. ...
To the Top |
Trianon 