354 See Note 270.

355 See Note 136.

356 See Note 306.

357 Marx’s prediction of the Frankfurt National Assembly’s inglorious end, which was brought about by its own compromise with and connivance in the counter-revolution, came true. In compliance with the orders of the Austrian, Prussian and other governments which recalled their deputies from Frankfurt, the Assembly’s liberal majority, scared by the uprisings in defence of the imperial Constitution and the possibility of a civil war, disavowed this Constitution — their own creation — and resigned. The moderate democrats who thus proved to be in the majority lacked the courage to join the insurgents and continued to cherish hopes of introducing a Constitution by peaceful means. Early in June 1849, when the threat of dissolution arose, the “rump” of the Assembly transferred its sittings to Stuttgart (Württemberg). The imperial regent, who took an openly counter-revolutionary stand, was replaced by a five-man imperial administration (Karl Vogt, Ludwig Simons and others) which, because of its refusal to take revolutionary measures and its wavering and equivocal policy, was a complete failure. On June 18, 1849, the “rump” was dispersed by Württemberg troops.

358 Charlottenburg — a royal palace in the town of the same name west of Berlin (it became a suburb in the twentieth century); built in 1695 for Sophia Charlotte, wife of the Great Elector of Brandenburg, it later became one of the residences of the Prussian kings and also a place of their burial.

359 This refers to the joint action taken against revolutionary Hungary by the three monarchs — the Austrian Emperor, the Russian Tsar and the Prussian King. This counter-revolutionary plot is also exposed in Engels’ article “The Third Party in the Alliance” (see this volume, pp. 394-95).

360 In April 1795 Prussia concluded the separate Basle peace treaty with France and withdrew from the first anti-French coalition. and in October of that same year it signed the Petersburg convention with Russia and Austria on the third partition of Poland (see Note 276).

361 “Scrap of parchment” — paraphrased expression from the royal speech of Frederick William IV at the opening of the United Diet in 1847 (see Note 340).

362 See Note 46.

363 Ça ira! — a popular song during the French Revolution.

364 See Note 342.

365 On May 19, 1849 the Neue Rheinische Zeitung came out for the last time. The Government and the police had long awaited a suitable moment to suppress the newspaper. In April and early May 1849, the Minister of the Interior, Manteuffel, repeatedly demanded that the Cologne Public Prosecutor’s office and legal authorities bring an action against its editors. By that time, the number of charges against them had grown to 23 (some were later used as a pretext for instituting legal proceedings against Marx and Engels by default, see this volume, p. 516). However, Marx’s and Engels’ acquittal by the jury in February 1849 and fear of the people’s unrest compelled the Public Prosecutor’s office to refrain from making the legal proceedings against the paper public. Only after the main uprisings in the Rhine Province had, on the whole, been suppressed, was a long-prepared measure applied against Marx — expulsion from Prussia. He was refused Prussian citizenship in due time, despite the Cologne magistrate’s favourable reply to his application for this on his arrival in Cologne on April 11, 1848. After four months, delay, the Royal Government refused to confirm the magistrate’s decision, and Minister Kühlwetter, to whom Marx sent a complaint, turned it down (see present edition, Vol. 7, p. 581). Marx continued to remain “a foreigner” who could at any moment be accused of abusing hospitality and be subject to expulsion. The Royal Government’s note to this effect followed on May 1 1, 1849 (see below) and was handed to Marx on May 16. Other editors were also persecuted. Weerth and Dronke, who did not enjoy Prussian citizenship either, were likewise ordered to leave Cologne. Legal proceedings were instituted against Engels for his part in the Elberfeld uprising. The democratic press still surviving in Germany protested against the police measures towards the newspaper’s editors (see this volume, pp. 509-13). Forced to cease publication of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Marx and Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire  Engels cherished hopes of resuming it shortly in some other place (see this volume, p. 473), but the situation in the country did not allow them to carry out these intentions. The entire issue No. 301 of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung which carried this and other articles by Marx and Engels, together with the editors’ address to the Cologne workers, was printed in red ink.

This article was first published in English in the collection: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Articles from the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung”. 1848-49, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972.

366 This refers to the verdicts of the Cologne jury court pronounced on February 7 and 8, 1849. On February 7, Karl Marx, editor-in-chief of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Frederick Engels, co-editor, and Hermann Korff, responsible publisher, were brought before the court on a charge of having insulted the Chief Public Prosecutor Zweiffel and having libelled the policemen who arrested workers’ leaders, in the article “Arrests” published in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 35, July 5, 1848 (see present edition, Vol. 7).

On February 8, 1849 the second trial — against the Rhenish District Committee of Democrats — was held. For details see Note 289.

At both trials, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. For the speeches made by Marx and Engels at the trial, see present edition, Vol. 8, pp. 304-22.

367 In English this article was first published in the collection: Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Articles from the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung”. 1848-49, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972.

368 The delegates of the opposition headed by Kossuth submitted a whole programme of progressive reforms to the National Assembly (Diet) of the Hungarian Kingdom convened in November 1847 in Pressburg. However, the demands of the opposition came up against stubborn resistance on the part of the Right aristocratic wing of the Assembly, especially its Upper Chamber, and were implemented only under pressure of the revolutionary masses after the popular uprising in Pest and Buda on March 15, 1848. Even at this stage, the reforms carried out were of a narrow nature (see notes 193 and 263) because the Assembly was dominated by moderate liberal aristocrats inclined to compromise with the Austrian Court and conservative circles. Equality and autonomy were not granted to the oppressed nationalities and this allowed the Habsburg reaction to use their national movements in the struggle against the Hungarian revolution.

369 See Note 232.

370 The reference is to the appointment of Kossuth as head of the Defence Council, the actual government of revolutionary Hungary (see Note 70).

371 Engels is evidently referring to the rescript issued by the Austrian Emperor Ferdinand on October 3, 1848 when he ordered that the Hungarian Assembly be dissolved and its resolutions not sanctioned by the Crown (including that on the formation of the Defence Council) be regarded as invalid. According to this rescript, the Croatian Ban Jellachich was appointed commander-in-chief of all troops and extraordinary government commissioner in Hungary, and martial law was introduced throughout the country. The rescript was published in the Wiener Zeitung No. 275, October 5, 1848.

372 The battle of Schwechat (near Vienna), in which the Hungarian army was defeated by Austrian troops under Windischgrätz, took place on October 30, 1848, on the eve of the fall of revolutionary Vienna.

373 See Note 55.

374 See Note 9.

375 The reference is to the Declaration of Hungary’s Independence adopted by the National Assembly on April 14, 1849 (see Note 313).

376 See Note 40. 462

377 The reference is to the Polish national liberation insurrection of 1830-31.

378 The reference is to the elections to the French Legislative Assembly held on May 13, 1849. The monarchist groups — legitimists, Orleanists and Bonapartists who formed a joint “party of order” — got the majority. Though the elections were held in an atmosphere of administrative pressure and accompanied by ballot-rigging on the part of the conservative authorities, a major success was scored by a bloc of democrats and petty-bourgeois socialists called the Mountain party. About two million electors voted for their candidates, who received 180 seats in the Assembly.

379 The expectation of a new upsurge of the European revolution, which is expressed in Engels’ article closing his series about the revolutionary war in Hungary, as well as in other items by Marx and Engels in the last issues of the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, was fostered by the brilliant victories scored by the Hungarian army, the uprisings in South-West Germany and the maturing conflict between the democratic and counter-revolutionary forces in the French Republic. Hopes of a more extensive and wider revolution did not come true, however. The uprisings in Baden and the Palatinate did not extend beyond local limits and the activities of petty-bourgeois democrats in France in June 1849 failed (see this volume, pp. 477-79). In the Hungarian campaign, a change shortly took place unfavourable to the revolutionary movement. Internal differences intensified between radical circles and the supporters of a compromise with the Habsburgs among the liberal landowners who were afraid that the revolution would go further. The views of the latter were also shared by Görgey, Hungarian commander-in-chief (in May also appointed War Minister), who often acted contrary to the instructions of Kossuth and other radicals. Görgey’s strategic error was that he actually refused to undertake operations to capture Vienna and use the main forces for the siege of the fortress of Buda (Ofen), and this gave the Austrian command time to bring up reserves. In mid-June 1849 the Tsarist army under Paskevich entered Hungary to offer help to the Austrian counter-revolution. The Tsarist intervention was carried out according to the agreement concluded by Emperor Nicholas 1 and Francis Joseph in Warsaw on May 21, and was in fact approved by the ruling circles of France and England who were eager to destroy the revolution in Central Europe. The combined forces of the Habsburgs and the Tsar far outnumbered those of the Hungarians and inflicted several defeats on the latter. On August 13, Görgey, who was in command of the Hungarian main army, signed a capitulation at Világos. The Hungarian revolution was suppressed amid great terror of which many Hungarian military and political figures fell victims. Kossuth, Bem, Dembiniski and the head of the last Hungarian Government Szemere who had to flee the country, were sentenced to death by default.

380 See Note 19.

381 After the defeat of the Prussian troops by Napoleon’s army at Jena and Auerstedt (October 14, 1806), a number of Prussian fortresses capitulated to the French without a fight. The fortress of Kilstrin, for instance, surrendered to a small French detachment on October 31 and Magdeburg, with its many thousand-strong garrison and artillery, was surrendered by General Kleist on November 8, after the first salvo fired by the French from light field mortars.

In the Appeal To My People (An Mein Volk) of March 17, 1813 Frederick William III promised to introduce a Constitution in Prussia, but this remained a dead letter.

382 See Note 340.

383 See Note 274.