WILLIAM SMITH O’BRIEN (1803-1864) is chiefly remembered as the leader of the brave but unsuccessful Irish rebellion of 1848. What he did was foolhardy but exemplary: to oppose the oppressor with a bold, direct act. He subsequently faced trial, and his sentence to be executed was later commuted to transportation for life. He spent four and a half years in Tasmanian exile, when a pardon was accorded to him, conditional on his not setting foot within the United Kingdom, and not getting involved in politics.
From 1854 to 1856 he spent two years with his family in Brussels where he wrote a two- volume work: Principles of Government, Meditations in Exile. In it he referred to the Hungarian struggle of 1848-1849 with sympathy and respect. A free pardon was sent to him in July of that year. To my unconfirmed suspicion the pardon he received from the queen had been requested by his brother, Lord Inchiquin.
In 1859, WS O’Brien travelled in America and, returning to Europe, visited Germany, Austria, Hungary and Poland. Here we are concerned with his stay in Hungary in August-September 1861. His trip and contemplations were covered by his chronological entries in his journal, written 150 years ago, but never published except in short excerpts. One such publication is Ireland and Hungary: Dublin, Four Courts Press, 2001).
“The Journal” is a diary in a hardbound exercise copy book. O’Brien had a neat hand, used precise expressions, and displayed an elegant style. The diary was in the possession of the family until about 20 years ago when it was transferred to the national archives of the National Library. It is now part of the O’Brien papers of 1861.
The diary of his Hungarian visit covers a boat journey from Vienna to Pest, his sojourn and activities in Pest Buda, sightseeing and discussions with Hungarian noblemen, his trip to the spa, Balatonfüred, his excursions to Debrecen, the second Magyar city, and his trip to Hotkocz, an estate in the north of the country.
O’Brien was received well, at times enthusiastically by the Hungarians. He was a well-spoken elegant gentleman who could easily make contact in English or French, and when both failed with his hosts, he used Latin, still a lingua franca in Europe .
The Irishman’s purpose in travelling to post-revolutionary Hungary was to visit the final session of its re-emerging Parliament, whose members had refused to take part in the Reichsrath (the Imperial Parliament) in Vienna. During his August days in the Hungarian capital O’Brien made sure to meet the leading lights of Hungary’s political life: Ferenc Deák, (who was to be the architect of the compromise in 1867), Count Béla Szechenyi (the son of the great reformer), his guide in town, Count László Csáky (landowner), Kálmán Ghyczy, (the president of the upper house) and others. Through the explanation of Hungarian landowners, and his personal experience at Hotkocz estate, O’Brien understood the Magyar movement of passive resistance. Widespread in the country, the non-payment of taxes resulted in great administrative difficulties for the authorities. Added to that was the power that the Hungarian parliament had retained.
O’Brien was present at the parliament’s concluding session, sitting in the gallery, when on August 22nd the assembly asserted its independence, its legal and constitutional powers. “It was the best day of my life” the Irishman confessed to his diary. His comments were clearly pointing the way Ireland should proceed, following along the tracks of Hungary. She should have her own legal and constitutional assembly, free from Westminster. In a sense it was a repeated aim once expressed by O’Brien himself in the late 1840s. In 1861 he saw and expressed that Ireland had a parallel fate with Hungary, the Austrians being the colonisers of the Magyars while Britain was and remained the coloniser of the Irish.
We are familiar with the notions of Arthur Griffith, a friend and follower of Hungarians and their institutions. He had never been to Hungary, but received his information from history books and Magyar embassy staff. His political pamphlet, The Resurrection of Hungary, a Parallel for Irelandwas first published in 1904, its third and last edition being printed in 1918. The influence of this pamphlet cannot be overstated; one outcome was the creation of Sinn Féin, modelled originally on the Hungarian Védegylet (Protective Association), the other a variant continuity whose flag-bearers were Fine Gael.
Yet Griffith in his pamphlet, or in subsequent articles on the “Hungarian Way” made no mention of O’Brien’s experiences or ideas. Why not? One possibility is that he who was making a study of Hungarian achievements had not wished to reveal O’Brien as a pioneer. The other explanation is that Griffith was unaware of O’Brien’s visit and his views on Hungary. Nineteenth-century Hungary had four periods dovetailing into one another: the reform era to 1847. The revolution and the Austrian retribution from 1848-1857. The national reawakening from 1857-1866. The Austro- Hungarian Empire from 1867-1918.
Griffith lived and worked during the last period and recorded the triumphs of the Hungarians. This was for him an opportunity to dismiss the Home Rule movement and Parnell’s limited efforts. His hero was the Hungarian Deák, the architect of the Austro-Hungarian compromise who would not compromise on the issue of an independent parliament.
O’Brien, living two generations earlier, had the experience of the re-emergence of Hungarian nationalism. He was a leader in Ireland who was not allowed to lead. He wrote in his diary: “The Hungarians will be arbiters not only of their own fate but also of the fate of the Austrian Empire.” (1861, p31).
A hundred years later both Ireland and Hungary are now members of the European Union along with Britain and Austria.