Stil vladanja bana Pavla Raucha doživio je brojne oštre kritike ne samo
oporbene političke javnosti u banskoj Hrvatskoj nego i uglednoga
britanskog publicista i novinara Roberta W. Seton-Watsona. Prema
njegovu mišljenju Rauchovo je banovanje bilo neustavno i u funkciji
potpunoga podvrgavanja banske Hrvatske mađarskim interesima. Na
Seton-Watsonovo pisanje reagirao je frankovački pravaš Isidor Kršnjavi,
koji je argumentirano opovrgao Britančeve negativne tvrdnje o
političkim odnosima u tadašnjoj Hrvatskoj.The appointment of the Baron Pavao Rauch as Viceroy (1908) was directly
associated with the decision of the Austro-Hungarian Ministry Council
(1907) to — when the inner and outer political circumstances permitted —
annex Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had been occupied by the
Monarchy as early as 1878. Elections for the new constitution of the
Croatian Parliament — held at the end of February 1908 — were, for the
new Viceroy, devastating. The Croatian-Serbian coalition won the election
by gaining 56 seats. The Croatian Party of Rights won 24 seats in the
Parliament. The share of other parties was insignificant. The greatest surprise of the elections was the complete failure of the Constitutional
Party. It was supported by Rauch and his authority as the Viceroy. The
party did not win a single seat. However, already at the second session of
the newly constituted Parliament, the King\u27s decision — on postponing its
work until further notice — was read. The Croatian Parliament continued
its work only after the Baron Rauch had left his Viceroy\u27s post (1910).
Rauch\u27s style of rule received an abundance of severe criticism, not only
from the political public of the opposition in Civil Croatia, but also from
the eminent British publicist and journalist Robert W. Seton-Watson (Scotus
Viator). Reputed as an expert on the relations within the Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy, he — in his booklet Absolutismus in Kroatien (Vienna-Leipzig,
1909) — critically reflected on the political circumstances in Civil Croatia.
According to him, Rauch\u27s rule was unconstitutional and with the purpose
of entirely subjecting Civil Croatia to Hungarian interests. Isidor Kršnjavi, a
member of the Party of Rights led by Josip Frank, responded to Seton-
Watson\u27s writing with his booklet Scotus Viator über Kroatien (Vienna-
Leipzig, 1909). Being well acquainted with the Croatian political
circumstances, but also the centres of information that provided Seton-
Watson with the details on which he founded his conclusions, Kršnjavi —
without excluding fine irony — disproved the Briton\u27s negative claims on
the political relations in Civil Croatia. Although they were fundamentally
divided over political questions and the fate of the Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy, the relationship between the two brilliant European intellectuals
remained correct and they maintained their previously held views
