[p. 609]
|609| England it is another matter, for the supreme power of England and Hanover are not united, through separation of the ministries. The king could indeed unite them; he has the highest state power, to conclude war and peace, to make alliances, administration of the treasury, command over the armies in both. But only the administration of the treasury, not the granting. Besides, under George I the interest of both was united. Had he been more fortunate, he would have snatched to himself the role of Prussia. But England’s interest is against France, hence with Austria. Then it would have been against both and would not have maintained itself. [The] role [of Prussia was] counter-power against the Emperor and protection for lesser ones; thereby [it set] itself in the place of the imperial power in a part of Germany.
b) an unintentional dissolution of the state seems, on the part of the peoples, to have been religion; the princes knew what they did, as shows through everywhere, the peoples honestly and sincerely for religion, and honestly and sincerely they thought not of others; national enmities engendered at the same time by war and plunderings and mutual hostilities.
This separation of religion has become astonishingly important; in other countries nationality, the state, has nevertheless won out over the enormous disruption, in Germany too unskilful to maintain this. [There remained] for the Emperor no other means than to make princes of the Empire, because he did not win more votes. Blindly or intentionally the state has been made to perish. The Emperor was only Catholic, himself a party, not state as in France, the Austrian monarchy; and so then the Protestants too only party. One did not speak of foreign influence; if they wished, they could.
Anarchy made legal by the Corpus Evangelicum, not merely religious matters, also taxes and other matters, so also in the Imperial Chamber Court and Aulic Council itio in partes. Manifest use of religion. Because political rights were bound to religion, both parties have through it torn themselves away from state power; for the separation of both parties has torn the bond.
That a state now be possible, the separation of religion and politics is necessary; it is not for the supreme power to have a power over religion, God forbid, but precisely no power over it, no rights with regard to it; only then is the supreme power possible for the defence of the internal and external.
D. Confidence and obedience toward the supreme power necessarily impossible under the separation of states in Germany. That
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.