Chapter XIII: Part 13

Let this word "_brother_," with all the dear ties comprized in that word, be the impression I leave upon your hearts. Let this word, "_brethren, remember!_" be my farewell.

* * * * *

XLI.--THE HISTORY AND HEART OF MASSACHUSETTS.

[_Worcester,[*] Massachusetts_.]

[Footnote *: "Heart of the Commonwealth," is the American title of the town of Worcester.]

Gentlemen,--Just as the Holy Scriptures are the revelation of religious truth, teaching men how to attain eternal bliss, so history is the revelation of eternal wisdom, instructing nations how to be happy, and immortal on earth. Unaccountable changes may alter on a sudden the condition of individuals, but in the life of nations there is always a close concatenation of cause and effect--therefore history is the book of life, wherein the past assumes the shape of future events.

The history of old Massachusetts is full of instruction to those who know how to read unwritten philosophy in written facts. Besides, to me it is of deep interest, because of the striking resemblances between your country's history and that of mine. In fact, from the very time that the "colonial system" was adopted by Great Britain, to secure the monopoly of the American trade, down to Washington's final victories;--from James Otis, pleading with words of flame the rights of America before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, breathing into the nation that breath of life out of which American Independence was born; down to the Declaration of Independence, first moved by a son of Massachusetts;--I often believe I read of Hungary when I read of Massachusetts. But next, when the kind cheers of your generous-hearted people rouse me out of my contemplative reveries, and looking around me I see your prosperity, a nameless woe comes over my mind, because that very prosperity reminds me that I am not at home. The home of my fathers--the home of my heart--the home of my affections and of my cares, is in the most striking contrast with the prosperity I see here. And whence this striking contrast in the results, when there exists such a striking identity in the antecedents? Whence this afflicting departure from logical coherence in history?

It is, because your struggle for independence met the good luck, that monarchical France stipulated to aid with its full force America struggling for independence, whereas republican America delayed even a recognition of Hungary's independence at the crisis when it had been achieved. However! the equality of results may yet come. History will not prove false to poor Hungary, while it proves true to all the world. I certainly shall never meet the reputation of Franklin, but I may yet meet his good luck in a patriotic mission. It is not yet too late. My people, like the damsel in the Scriptures, is but sleeping, and not dead. Sleep is silent, but restores to strength. There is apparent silence also in nature before the storm. We are downtrodden, it is true: but was not Washington in a dreary retreat with his few brave men, scarcely to be called an army, when Franklin drew nigh to success in his mission?

My retreat is somewhat longer, to be sure, but then our struggle went on from the first on a far greater scale; and again, the success of Franklin was aided by the hatred of France against England; so I am told, and it is true; but I trust that the love of liberty in republican America will prove as copious a source of generous inspiration, as hatred of Great Britain proved in monarchical France. Or, should it be the doom of humanity that even republics like yours are more mightily moved by hatred than by love, is there less reason for republican America to hate the overwhelming progress of absolutism, than there was reason for France to hate England's prosperity? In fact, that prosperity has not been lessened, but rather increased by the rending away of the United States from the dominion of England; but the absorption of Europe into predominant absolutism, would cripple your prosperity, because you are no China, no Japan.

America cannot remain unaffected by the condition of Europe, with which you have a thousand-fold intercourse. A passing accident in Liverpool, a fire in Manchester, cannot fail to be felt in America--how could then the fire of despotic oppression, which threatens to consume all Europe's freedom, civilization, and property, fail to affect in its results America? How can it be indifferent to you whether Europe be free or enslaved?--whether there exists a "Law of Nations," or no such thing any more exists, being replaced by the caprice of an arrogant mortal who is called "Czar?" No! either all the instruction of history is vanity, and its warnings but the pastime of a mocking-bird, or this indifference is impossible; therefore I may yet meet with Franklin's good luck.

Franklin wrote to his friend Charles Thompson, after having concluded the treaty of peace--"If we ever become ungrateful to those who have served and befriended us, our reputation, and all the strength it is capable of procuring, will be lost, and new dangers ensue."

Perhaps I could say, poor Hungary has well served Christendom, has well served the cause of humanity; but indeed we are not so happy as to have served your country in particular. But you are generous enough to permit our unmerited misfortunes to recommend us to your affections in place of good service. It is beautiful to repay a received benefit, but to bestow a benefit is divine. It is your good fortune to be _able_ to do good to humanity: let it be your glory that you are _willing_ to do it.

Then what will be the tidings I shall have to bear back to Europe, in answer to the expectations with which I was charged from Turkey, Italy, France, Portugal, and England? Let me hope the answer will be fit to be reanswered by a mighty hallelujah, at the shout of which the thrones of tyrants will quake; and when they are fallen, and buried beneath the fallen pillars of tyranny, all the Christian world will unite in the song of praise--"Glory to God in Heaven, and peace to right-willing men on earth, and honour to America, the first-born son of Liberty. For no nation has God done so much as for her; for she proved to be well deserving of it, because she was obedient to his Divine Law--She has loved her neighbour as herself, and did unto others as, in the hour of her need, she desired others to do unto herself."

Gentlemen,--I know what weight is due to Massachusetts in the councils of the nation; the history, the character, the intelligence, the consistent energy, and the considerate perseverance of your country, give me the security that when the people of Massachusetts raises its voice and pronounces its will--it will carry its aim.

I have seen this people's will in the manifestation of him whom the people's well-deserved confidence has raised to the helm of its Executive Government; I have seen it in the sanction of its Senators; I have seen it in the mighty outburst of popular sentiments, and in the generous testimonials of its sympathy, as I moved over this hallowed soil. I hope soon to see it in the Legislative Hall of your Representatives, and in the Cradle of American Liberty.

I hope to see it as I see it now here, throbbing with warm, sincere, generous, and powerful pulsation, in the very heart of your Commonwealth. I know that where the heart is sound the whole body is sound--the blood is sound throughout all the veins. Never believe those to be right who, bearing but a piece of metal in their chests, could persuade you, that to be cold is to be wise. Warmth is the vivifying influence of the universe, and the warm heart is the source of noble deeds. To consider calmly what you have to do is well. You have done so. But let me hope that the heart of Massachusetts will continue to throb warmly for the cause of liberty, till that which you judge to be right is done, with that persistent energy, which, inherited from the puritan pilgrims of the Mayflower, is a principle with the people of Massachusetts. Remember the afflicted,--farewell.

* * * * *

XLII.--PANEGYRIC OF MASSACHUSETTS.

[_Speech at Faneuil Hall_.]

Kossuth entered Boston on the 27th April, escorted by twenty-nine companies of infantry and four of artillery, in the midst of flags and other festive display. He was welcomed by Gov. Boutwell at the State House. In the afternoon he reviewed the troops on the common, in the midst of an immense multitude. The members of the legislature and of the council came in procession from the State House, and joined him in the field. In the evening he was entertained at the Revere House, as the guest of the Legislative Committee.

On April 28th he was escorted by the Independent Cadets to the State House, where Governor Boutwell received him with a brief but emphatic speech, avowing that Kossuth had "imparted important instruction" to the people of the United States. The governor then conducted Kossuth to the Senate, where he was warmly welcomed by the President, General Wilson; and thence again to the House of Representatives, where the Speaker, Mr. Banks, addressed him in words of high honour, in the name of the representatives. To each of these addresses Kossuth replied; but the substance of his speeches has scarcely sufficient novelty to present here.

On the evening of the 29th of April it was arranged that he should speak in Faneuil Hall. The hall filled long before his arrival, and an incident occurred which deserves record. The crowd amused itself by calling on persons present for speeches: among others Senator Myron Lawrence was called for, who, after first refusing, stept on the platform and declared that _he had some sins to confess_. He had been guilty of thinking Kossuth to be what is called "a humbug;" but he had seen him now, and thought differently. He had seen the modest, truthful bearing of the man,--that he had no tricks of the orator, but spoke straightforward. Mr. Lawrence now believed him to be sincere and honest, and prayed Almighty God to grant him a glorious success. This frank and manly acknowledgment was received with unanimous and hearty applause.

At eight o'clock Governor Boutwell, his council, and the committee of reception, as also the vice-presidents and secretaries, received Kossuth in Faneuil Hall.[*] When applause had ceased, the Governor addressed Kossuth as follows:--

[Footnote *: Faneuil Hall is entitled by the Americans "the cradle of American Liberty."]

Gentlemen,--We have come from the exciting and majestic scenes of the reception which the people of Massachusetts have given to the exiled son of an oppressed and distant land, that on this holy spot, associated in our minds with the eloquence, the patriotism, the virtue of the revolution, we may listen to his sad story of the past and contemplate his plans and hopes for the future. And shall these associations which belong to us, and this sad story which belongs to humanity, fail to inspire our souls and instruct our minds in the cause of freedom? Europe is not like a distant ocean, whose agitations and storms give no impulse to the wave that gently touches our shore. The introduction of steam power and the development of commercial energy are blending and assimilating our civilities and institutions. Europe is nearer to us in time than the extreme parts of this country are to each other. As all of us are interested in the prevalence of the principles of justice among our fellow men, _so_, as a nation, we are interested in the prevalence of the principles of justice among the nations and states of Europe.

Never before was the American mind so intelligently directed to European affairs. We have not sought, nor shall we seek, the control of those affairs. But we may scan and judge their character and prepare ourselves for the exigencies of national existence to which we may be called. _I do not hesitate to pronounce the opinion that the policy of Europe will have a visible effect upon the character, power, and destiny of the American Republic_. That policy as indicated by Russia and Austria, is the work of centralization, consolidation and absolutism. American policy is the antagonist of this.

We are pledged to liberty and the sovereignty of States. Shall a contest between our own principles and those of our enemies awaken no emotions in us? We believe that government should exist for the advantage of the individual members of the body politic, and not for the use of those who, by birth, fortune, or personal energy, may have risen to positions of power. We recognize the right of each nation to establish its own institutions and regulate its own affairs. Our revolution rests upon this right, and otherwise is entirely indefensible. The policy of this nation, as well foreign as domestic, should be controlled by American principles, that the world may know we have faith in the government we have established. While we cannot adopt the cause of any other people, or make the quarrels of European nations our own, it is our duty to guard the principles peculiar to America, as well as those entertained by us in common with the civilized world.

One principle, which should be universal in States as among individual men is, that each should use his own in such a way as not to injure that which belongs to another. _Russia violated this principle when she interfered in the affairs of Hungary_, and thus weakened the obligations of other States to respect the sovereignty of the Russian Empire.

The independent existence of the continental States of Europe, is of twofold importance to America. Important politically, important commercially.

As independent States they deprive Russia, the central and absorbing power of Europe, of the opportunity on the Mediterranean to interfere in the politics and civilities of this Continent. Russia and the United States are as unlike as any two nations which ever existed. If Russia obtains control of Europe by the power of arms, and the United States shall retain this Continent by the power of its principles, war will be inevitable. As inevitable as it was in former days that war should arise between Carthage and Rome,--Carthage, which sought to extend her power by commerce, and Rome, which sought to govern the world by the sword. The independence of the States of Europe is then the best security for the peace of the world. If these States exist, it must be upon one condition only--that each State is permitted to regulate its own affairs. If the voice of the United States and Great Britain is silent, will Russia allow these States to exist upon this principle?--Has she not already partitioned Poland--menaced Turkey--divided with the Sultan the sovereignty of Wallachia--infused new energy into the despotic councils of Austria--and finally aided her in an unholy crusade against the liberties of Hungary? Have we not then an interest in the affairs of Europe? And if we have an interest, ought we not to use the rights of an independent State for its protection?

The second consideration is commercial.

Centralization, absolutism, destroys commerce. The policy of Russia diminishes production and limits markets. Whenever she adds a new State to her dominions the commerce of the world is diminished. Great Britain and the United States, which possess three-fourths of the commercial marine of the globe, are interested to prevent it. Our commerce at this moment with despotic States is of very little importance, and its history shows that in every age it has flourished in proportion to the freedom of the people.

These, gentlemen, are poor words and barren thoughts upon the great European question of the time. A question which America in her own name, and for herself, must meet at some future day, if now she shall fail to meet it firmly, upon well settled principles of national law, for the protection and assistance of other States.

I have done. The exiled patriot shall speak for himself. Not for himself only, nor for the land and people of Hungary he loves so well, but for Europe, and America even, he speaks. Before you he pleads your own cause. It is to a just tribunal I present a noble advocate. And to him it shall be a bright spot in the dreary waste of the exile's life, that to-night he pleads the cause of Hungary and humanity, where once Otis and Adams, and Hancock and Quincy, pleaded the cause of America and liberty.

I present to you Governor Kossuth of Hungary.

In reply to Governor Boutwell, when the tumultuous applause had subsided, Kossuth spoke, in substance as follows:--

He apologized for profaning Shakespeare's language in Faneuil Hall, the cradle of American liberty. Yet he ventured to criticize that very phrase; for liberty ought not to be _American_, but _human_; else it is no longer a right, but a privilege; and privilege can nowhere be permanent. The nature of a privilege (said he) is exclusiveness, that of a principle is communicative. Liberty is a principle: its community is its security; exclusiveness is its doom.

What is aristocracy? It is exclusive liberty; it is privilege; and aristocracy is doomed, because it is contrary to the destiny of men. As aristocracy should vanish within each nation, so should no nation be an aristocrat among nations. Until that ceases, liberty will nowhere be lasting on earth. It is equally fatal to individuals as to nations, to believe themselves beyond the reach of vicissitudes. By this proud reliance, and the isolation resulting therefrom, more victims have fallen than by immediate adversities. You have grown prodigiously by your freedom of seventy-five years; but what is seventy-five years as a charter of immortality? No, no, my humble tongue tells the records of eternal truth. A _privilege_ never can be lasting. Liberty restricted to one nation never can be sure. You may say, "We are the prophets of God;" but you shall not say, "God is only our God." The Jews said so, and their pride, old Jerusalem, lies in the dust. Our Saviour taught all humanity to say, "Our Father in heaven," and his Jerusalem is lasting to the end of days.

"There is a community in mankind's destiny"--that was the greeting which I read on the arch of welcome on the Capitol Hill of Massachusetts. I pray to God, the Republic of America would weigh the eternal truth of those words, and act accordingly; liberty in America would then be sure to the end of time; but if you say, "American Liberty," and take that grammar for your policy, I dare to say the time will yet come when humanity will have to mourn a new proof of the ancient truth, that without community national freedom is never sure.

However, the cradle of American Liberty is not only famous from the reputation of having been always on the lists of the most powerful eloquence; it is still more conspicuous for having seen that eloquence attended by practical success. To understand the mystery of this rare circumstance one must see the people of New England, and especially the people of Massachusetts.

In what I have seen of New England there are two things, the evidence of which strikes the observer at every step--prosperity and intelligence. I have seen thousands assembled, following the noble impulses of a generous heart: almost the entire population of every town, of every village where I passed, gathered around me, throwing flowers of consolation on my path. I have seen not a single man bearing that mark of poverty upon himself which in old Europe strikes the eye sadly at every step. I have seen no ragged poor--have seen not a single house bearing the appearance of desolated poverty. The cheerfulness of a comfortable condition, the result of industry, spreads over the land. One sees at a glance that the people work assiduously, not with the depressing thought just to get through the cares of a miserable life from day to day by hard toil, but they work with the cheerful consciousness of substantial happiness. And the second thing which I could not fail to remark, is the stamp of intelligence impressed upon the very eyes and outward appearance of the people at large. I and my companions have seen them in the factories, in the workshops, in their houses, and in the streets, and could not fail a thousand times to think "how intelligent this people looks." It is to such a people that the orators of Faneuil Hall had to speak, and therein is the mystery of success. They were not wiser than the public spirit of their audience, but they were the eloquent interpreters of the people's enlightened instinct.

No man can force the harp of his own individuality into the people's heart, but every man may play upon the chords of his people's heart, who draws his inspiration from the people's instinct. Well, I thank God for having seen the public spirit of the people of Massachusetts, bestowing its attention on the cause I plead, and pronouncing its verdict. In respect to the question of national intervention, his Excellency the high-minded Governor of Massachusetts wrote a memorable address to the Legislature; the Joint Committee of the Legislative Assembly, after a careful and candid consideration of the subject, not only concurred in the views of the Executive government, but elucidated them in a report, the irrefutable logic and elevated statesmanship of which will for ever endear the name of Hazewell to oppressed nations; and the Senate of Massachusetts adopted the resolutions proposed by the Legislative Committee. After such remarkable and unsolicited manifestations of conviction, there cannot be the slightest doubt that all these Executive and Legislative proceedings not only met the full approbation of the people of Massachusetts, but were the solemn interpretation of public opinion. A spontaneous outburst of popular sentiment tells often more in a single word than all the skill of elaborate eloquence could; as when, amidst the thundering cheers of a countless multitude, a man in Worcester greeted me with the shout: "_We worship not the man, but we worship the principle_." It was a word, like those words of flame spoken in Faneuil Hall, out of which liberty in America was born. That word reveals the spirit, which, applying eternal truth to present exigencies, moves through the people's heart--that word is teeming with the destinies of America.

Give me leave to mention, that having had an opportunity to converse with leading men of the great parties, which are on the eve of an animated contest for the Presidency--I availed myself of that opportunity, to be informed of the principal issues, in case the one or the other party carries the prize; and having got the information thereof, I could not forbear to exclaim--"All these questions together cannot outweigh the all-overruling importance of _foreign policy_." It is there, in the question of foreign policy, that the heart of the immediate future throbs. Security and danger, prosperity and stagnation, peace and war, tranquillity and embarrassment--yes, life and death, will be weighed in the scale of Foreign Policy. It is evident things are come to the point where they were in ancient Rome, when old Cato never spoke privately or publicly about whatever topic, without closing his speech with these words: "_However, my opinion is that Carthage must be destroyed_"--thus advertising his countrymen, that there was one question outweighing in importance all other questions, from which public attention should never for a moment be withdrawn.

Such, in my opinion, is the condition of the world now. Carthage and Rome had no place on earth together. Republican America and all-overwhelming Russian absolutism cannot much longer subsist together on earth. Russia active--America passive--there is an immense danger in that fact; it is like the avalanche in the Alps, which the noise of a bird's wing may move and thrust down with irresistible force, growing every moment. I cannot but believe it were highly time to do as old Cato did, and finish every speech with these words--"_However, the law of nations should be maintained, and absolutism not permitted to become omnipotent._"

It is however a consolation to me to know, that the _chief_ difficulty with which I have to contend,--viz. the overpowering influence of domestic questions with you,--is neither lasting, nor in any way an argument against the justice of our cause.

Another difficulty which I encounter is rather curious. Many a man has told me that if I had only not fallen into the hands of _abolitionists_ and _free soilers_, they would have supported me; and had I landed somewhere in the South, instead of at New York, I should have met quite different things from that quarter; but being supported by the free-soilers, of course I must be opposed by the South. On the other side, I received a letter, from which I beg leave to quote a few lines:--

"You are silent on the subject of slavery. Surrounded as you have been by slaveholders ever since you put your foot on English soil, if not during your whole voyage from Constantinople, and ever since you have been in this country surrounded by them, whose threats, promises, and flattery made the stoutest hearts succumb, your position has put me in mind of a scene described by the apostle of Jesus Christ, when the devil took him up into a high mountain," &c.

Now, gentlemen, thus being charged from one side with being in the hands of abolitionists, and from the other side with being in the hands of slaveholders, I indeed am at a loss what course to take, if these very contradictory charges were not giving me the satisfaction to feel that I stand just where it is my duty to stand--on a truly American ground.

And oh, have I not enough upon these poor shoulders, that I am desired yet to take up additional cares? If the cause I plead be just, if it is worthy of your sympathy, and at the same time consistent with the impartial consideration of your own moral and material interests, (which a patriot never should disregard, not even out of philanthropy,) then why not weigh that cause in the scale of its own value, and not in a foreign one? Have I not difficulties enough before me here, that I am desired to increase them with my own hands?--Father Mathew goes on preaching temperance, and he may be opposed or supported on his own ground; but who ever thought of opposing him because he takes not into his hands to preach fortitude or charity? And indeed, to oppose or to abandon the cause I plead, only because I mix not with the agitation of an interior question, is a greater injustice yet, because to discuss the question of foreign policy I have a right,--my nation is an object of that policy; we are interested in it;--but to mix with interior party movements I have no right, not being a citizen of the United States.

[After this Kossuth proceeded to urge, as in former speeches, that the interests of American commerce were not opposed to, but were identified with, the cause of Hungary and of European Liberty. He also adduced new considerations, which are afterwards treated more fully in his speech at Buffalo.]

* * * * *

XLIII.--SELF-GOVERNMENT OF HUNGARY.

[_Banquet in Faneuil Hall_.]

On April 30th, Kossuth was entertained at a Grand Banquet, by the Governor and Council, and the Members of the two Houses. Eight hundred and seventy tickets besides were issued, and were all taken up. The Honourable Henry Wilson, President of the Senate, was President for the evening. It is not possible here to print all the speeches, but it may be noted that Governor Boutwell, in reply to a toast, elicited affirmative replies from the guests to many questions directed to show the necessity of American armed interference on the side of Hungary. Also, the venerable Josiah Quincy, aged eighty, in reply to a toast, declared that liberty remained only in the United States and Great Britain, and that in Great Britain herself the spirit of freedom is weakened. "Let Great Britain fail and be beaten down, and all the navies of Europe will be bristling against the United States." Finally, President Wilson, introducing the guest of the evening, said:--

"Gentlemen, allow me to present to you the illustrious guest of Massachusetts, Governor Kossuth. He has won our admiration as a man by the advocacy of the cause of his country, and he has won all our hearts by the purity of his principles."

Kossuth, in reply, noticed that the toast with which he had been honoured was almost entirely personal; and while disclaiming merit, he was nevertheless induced to advert to personal incidents, (now generally known,) as,--how he published in MS. the Hungarian debates,--was unlawfully imprisoned for it, and learned English in prison by means of Shakespeare; how when he was necessarily released, the government imposed an unlawful censorship on his journal, which journal nevertheless became the basis of the great and extensive reforms which received their completion in the laws of March and April, 1848. After this he proceeded as follows:--

Gentlemen, allow me to say a few words on the ancient institutions of Hungary. I have often heard it said that the people of Europe are incapable of self-government. Let me speak of the people of Hungary, to show whether they are capable of self-government or not. In thirty-six years, with God's help, and through your generous aid, the free people of Hungary will celebrate the 1000th anniversary of the establishment of their home--the millennium of Hungary in Europe. Yes, gentlemen, may I hope that celebration will take place under the blessings of liberty in the year 1889?

It is a long period--one thousand years--and Oh! how it has teemed with adversities to my countrymen! and yet through this long time, amid all adversities there was no period when the people of Hungary did not resist despotism. Our boast is, that through the vicissitudes of a thousand years there was not a moment when the popular will and the legal authorities had sanctioned the rule of absolutism. And, gentlemen, what other people, for 1000 years, has not consented to be ruled by despotism? Even in the nineteenth century I am glad to look back to the wisdom of our fathers through a thousand years--who laid down for Hungarian institutions a basis which for all eternity must remain true. This basis was upon that Latin proverb _nil de nobis, sine nobis_--"nothing about us without us." That was, to claim that every man should have a full share in the sovereignty of the people and a full share in the rights belonging to his nation. In other times a theory was got up to convince the people that they might have a share in _legislation_ just so far as to control that legislation, but denying the right of the people to control the _executive_ power. The Hungarian people never adopted that theory. They ever claimed a full share in the _executive_ as well as in the legislative and judicial power. Out of this idea of government rose the municipal system of Hungary. In respect to Hungarian aristocracy, you must not consider it in the same light as the aristocracy of England. The word _nobleman_ in Hungary originally was equivalent to _soldier_. Every man who defended his country was a nobleman, and every man who had a vote was called to defend his country. I believe the duty of defending a man's country, and also political right, should be common.

After our people had conquered a home, the leaders took the lion's share, of course. But it should be considered that those who had the largest share of the property, were compelled to furnish soldiers according to the extent of their possessions. Therefore such men gave a part of their land to people to cultivate, and desired aid of them whenever the necessity for war came. So all who defended their country were considered noblemen. Hungary was divided into fifty-two counties, but not counties like yours--some of them were so populous as to be comparable to your States, containing perhaps half a million or more of people, and those who became the aristocracy in some of these counties amounted to 35,000. In every county was a fortress, and whenever defence became necessary, the rich men went into these fortresses under their own banner, and the others went under the King's colours, and were commanded by the sheriff of the county, who might be here Governor--at least who was the chief of the Executive. Certain of the cities were raised to constitutional rights. A smaller city, if surrounded by fortifications, or if an important post, was represented in the Diet, whilst larger places, if not posts of importance for national defence, were represented only by the County Delegates. Every place that had the elements of defence had political rights. So it came to pass that the aristocracy were not a few men, but half a million. I had contended to beat down this barrier of aristocracy. Before the Revolution, in municipal governments only the nobility had a share--they only were the men who could vote: but the change was easy. The frame of self-government was ready. We had only to say, _the people_ instead of _the nobility_ had the right to vote; and so, in one day, we buried aristocracy, never to rise again. Each county elected its Representatives to the Diet, and had the right of intercourse with other counties by means of letters on all matters of importance to these counties; and therefore our fifty-two primary councils were normal schools of public spirit. We elected our Judicatory and Executive, and the government had not a right to send instructions or orders to our Executive; and if an order came which we considered to be inconsistent with our constitutional rights, it was not sent to the Executive, but to the Council; and therefore the arbitrary orders of the Government could not be executed, because they came not into the hands of the Executive. Thus were our Councils barriers against oppression.

When the French took Saragossa, it was not enough to take the city--they had to take every house. So also _we_ went on, and though some counties might accept the arbitrary orders of the government, some resisted; and, by discussing in their letters to the other counties the points of right, enlightened them; and it was seen that when the last house in Saragossa had been beaten down, the first stood erect again. In consequence of the democratic nature of our institutions, our Councils were our Grand Juries. But after having elected our Judges, we chose several men in every county meeting, of no public office, but conspicuous for their integrity and knowledge of the law, to assist the Judges in their administration.

Believe me, these institutions had a sound basis, fit to protect a nation against an arbitrary government which was aiming at centralization and oppression. Now, these counties having contended against the Austrian Government, it did everything to destroy them. The great field was opened in the Diet of 1847. Having been elected by the county of Pest, I had the honour to lead the party devoted to national rights and opposed to centralization and in defence of municipal authority. It was my intention to make it impossible that the Government should in future encroach upon the liberties of the people. We had the misfortune in Hungary to be governed by a Constitutional King, who at the same time was the absolute monarch of another realm--by birth and interests attached to absolutism and opposed to constitutional government. It was difficult to be an absolute monarch and behave as King of Hungary. There is on record a speech of mine, spoken in the Hungarian Diet, about the inconsistency of these two attributes in one man--that either Austria must become constitutional, or Hungary absolutistical. That speech virtually made the Revolution of 1848 at Vienna. After this Revolution, I was sent to Vienna to ask that our laws be established, releasing the people from feudal rights and demanding a constitutional ministry. Then it was that a circumstance occurred, to which I heard an allusion in the toast offered to me. I was told the King would grant our request; only, there was agitation in Vienna, and it would look as if the King were yielding to pressure. If the people would be quiet, the King would sanction our laws. Then I said, that if the King would give his sanction to our legislative measures, peace would be made for the House of Austria in twenty-four hours. But when that consent was given in one Chamber, in another Chamber that wicked woman, Sophia, the mother of the present Emperor, who calls himself King of Hungary--no, he does _not_ call himself King of Hungary, for he thinks the national existence of Hungary is blotted out--plotted how to ruin my people and destroy that sanction which was nothing but a necessary means to secure a just cause. Next came the Hungarian ministry--and, strange to say, I saw myself placed close to the throne.

When in Vienna, after the sanction was granted, steps were taken to retract it; I went to the Arch-Duke Stephen, the Palatine of Hungary, the first constitutional authority of Hungary,--the elective viceroy, and told him he ought to return to Hungary if he wished to preserve his influence.

He answered that he could not return to Hungary, for if the King did not sanction our laws--he (the Arch-Duke Stephen) might be proclaimed King instead of the Emperor of Austria, and he would never dethrone his cousin.

I answered, that he spoke like an honest man, but perhaps the time would come when he would find an empty seat on that throne, and he had better take it, for I could assure him, if he did not, no other man ever would with the consent of the people. When five months later, in Hungary, we met for the last time, he called me to his house on a stormy night, and desired of me to know what would be the issue of matters. I answered: I can see no issue for you, but the crown or else the scaffold, and then for the people a Republic. But even from this alternative I will relieve you: for you the crown, for me the scaffold, if the Hungarian independence is not achieved.--I make no hesitation here to confess that such was the embarrassed state of Hungarian affairs that I should have felt satisfied for him to have accepted the crown. Remember that your fathers did not design at first to sever the ties which bound the colonies to England, but circumstances forced the issue. So it was with us. We asked at first only Democratic institutions, but when it was possible we were glad to throw away our Kings.

The Arch-Duke did not accept, but was rather a traitor to his country. Such is the connection of tyrants with each other, they desire not to prevent others from oppressing. He is now an exile like myself. If he had accepted the proposal, no doubt the independence of Hungary would have been recognized by even Russia, especially if he had formed a family alliance with despotism, and then for centuries the establishment of a Republic would have been impossible; whereas, now, as sure as there is a God in Heaven, no King will ever rule Hungary; but it must be one of those Republics, wherein Republicanism is not a mere romance but a reality, founded upon the basis of municipal authorities, to which the people are attached. We could never have such a movement as disgraced France in December.

Excuse me, gentlemen, if I abuse your kindness. I am anxious to make known my ideas upon the future organization of my country. The organization which alone we could propose, is one founded upon the sovereignty of the people, not only in a _legislative_ capacity --for it is not enough that we know that sovereignty by casting a vote once in three or four years: we must feel it every day, everywhere. The sovereignty of the people asserts, that men have certain rights, not depending on any power, but natural rights. I mean such as religious liberty--free thought--a free press, and the right of every family to regulate its own affairs: but not only every family; also every town, city, and county. Our sovereignty shall be such, that the higher government will have no power to interfere in the domestic concerns of any town, city, or county. These are the principles upon which our government will be founded--not only sovereignty in Legislation, but a particular share in the executive Government.--Judge whether such a people is worthy to meet the sympathy of Republicans like you, who have shown to the world that a nation may be powerful without centralization. Believe me, there is harmony in our _ancient_ principles and your _recent_ ones. Judge whether my people is capable of self-government.

The venerable gentleman (Josiah Quincy) spoke a word about England. I believe the Anglo-Saxon race must have a high destiny in the history of mankind. It is the only race, the younger brother of which is free while the elder brother has also some freedom. You, gentlemen, acknowledge that from the mother country you obtained certain of your principles of liberty--free thought and speech, a free press, &c.--and I am sure, gentlemen, the English people are proud of liberty. Called to pronounce against the league of despots, if the Republican United States and constitutional England were in concord, what would be the consequence?

I answer, it would be exactly as when the South American Republic was threatened--as when Russia forbade American vessels to approach within a hundred miles of its American shores. I have often met in the United States an objection against an alliance with England; but it is chiefly the Irish who are opposed to being on good terms with England. In respect to the Irish, if I could contribute to the future unity in action of the United States and England, I should more aid the Irish than by all exclamations against one or other. If the United States and England were in union, the continent of Europe would be republican. Then, though England remained monarchical, Ireland would be freer than now. If I were an Irishman, I would not have raised the standard of _Repeal_, which offended the people of England, but the standard of municipal _self-government_ against parliamentary omnipotence--not as an Irish question, but as a common question to all--and in this movement the people of England and Scotland would have joined; and now there would have been a Parliament in England, in Ireland, and Scotland. Such is the geographical position of Great Britain, that its countries should be, not one, but united; each with its own Parliament, but still one Parliament for all. If I could contribute to get England to oppose the encroachments of absolutism, I should be doing more to aid Ireland, in aiding freedom, than if I so acted as to induce England to look indifferently at the approach of absolutism. I was glad to hear the words of that venerable gentleman (Josiah Quincy). They brought to my mind the words of John Adams, first minister of the United States to England. When he addressed the King, he said:--"_He would be happy could he restore entire esteem, confidence, and affection between the United States and England_," and King George III. replied: "_I was the last to conform to the separation, and I am the first to meet the friendship of the United States. Let the communities of language, religion, and blood have their full and natural effect._"

'Let this precedent, belonging to the intelligence not of to-day only--let those words become now considered of particular interest to both countries, and it would be of the greatest benefit to mankind. There is nothing more necessary to secure the freedom of Europe than consent to act together, on the part of the United States and England.

It is not necessary to say how far they will go, but only necessary to say they will do as much as their interests allow, and what may be necessary that the law of nations should be protected and not abandoned.

When I was in England nothing gave me more delight than to hear delegations addressing me, mention your Washington, and confess themselves sorry that he had to manifest his greatness in contending against England; but they were more proud to see the greatness of such a man, than not to have been opposed by him. They entrusted me to bring word to the United States, that they wished to be united to you for the benefit of all Humanity.

I was charged particularly by one hundred men connected with commerce at Manchester--the least wealthy of whom was _worth_, as they express it in England, £10,000 a year--these gentlemen told me it would be a great result of my mission in the United States, if I could convince Americans that Englishmen thought all differences had vanished; and they desired to go hand in hand with the people of the United States, as regards foreign policy. Now, I have observed in New England less objection to the policy of an alliance with England than in many other parts of the United States, and I take it for an evidence of the intelligence and liberality of the people.

I know, gentlemen, you have been pleased to honour me, not for myself (for the people of Massachusetts are not man-worshippers, but reverence principles only)--therefore I cannot better express my thanks than to pledge my word, relying, as on another occasion of deep interest I said, _upon the justice of our cause, the blessing of God, iron wills, stout arms, and good swords_--and upon your generous sympathy, to do all in my power, with my people, for my country and for humanity; for which indeed in my heart, though, it is somewhat old, there is yet warmth.

After many other toasts, President Wilson called on Judge Hoar to speak. The reply of the Judge had several striking sentences. He closed by saying to Kossuth:

"It is because you, Sir, have learned the truth that _Peace is the first interest of no people,--that there are other things more sacred than human life,--that without Justice and Freedom life is only a mockery, and peace a delusion and a burden,_--it is _because_, when tyranny had terminated every duty of a subject, you too[*] have dared to become the MOST NOTORIOUS REBEL of our time, _therefore_ does Massachusetts welcome you to the home of Hancock and of Adams, and the majestic spirit of Washington sheds its benediction upon the scene."

[Footnote *: The Judge alludes to Hancock and Adams, who were excepted by name as "notorious rebels," from General Gage's proclamation of amnesty.]

* * * * *

XLIV.--RUSSIA THE ANTAGONIST OF THE U.S.

[_Salem, May 6_.]

Ladies and gentlemen,--When four years ago, the tidings of our struggle made the scarcely before known name of Hungary familiar to you, sympathy for a nobly defended noble cause moved your hearts to rejoice at our victories, to feel anxiety about our dangers. Yet, so long as our struggle was but a domestic contest, a resistance against oppression by a perjurious king, you had no reason to think that the sympathy you felt for us, being a generous manifestation of the affections of free men, was at the same time an instinctive presentiment of a policy, which you in your national capacity will be called upon by circumstances, not only to consider, but, as I firmly believe, also to adopt.

You were far from anticipating that the issue of our struggle would become an opportunity for your country to take that position which Divine Providence has evidently assigned to you; I mean the position of a power, not restricted in its influence to the Western Hemisphere, but reaching across the earth. You had not thought that it is the struggle of Hungary which will call on you to fulfil the prophecy of Canning; who comprehended, that it is the destiny of the New World to redress the balance of power in the Old.

The universal importance of our contest has been but late revealed. It has been revealed by the interference of Russia, by our fall, and by its more threatening results.

Now, it has become evident to all thinking men, that the balance of power cannot be redressed unless Hungary is restored to national independence. Consequently if it be your own necessity to weigh in the scale of the powers on earth, if it be your destiny to redress the balance of power, the cause of Hungary is the field where this destiny will have to be fulfilled.

And it is indeed your destiny. Russian diplomacy could never boast of a greater and more fatal victory than it had a right to boast, should it succeed to persuade the United States not to care about her--Russia accomplishing her aim to become the ruling power in Europe; the ruling power in Asia; the ruling power of the Mediterranean sea. That would be indeed a great triumph to Russian diplomacy, greater than her triumph over Hungary; a triumph dreadful to all humanity, but to nobody more dreadful than to your own future.

All sophistry is in vain, gentlemen; there can be no mistake about it. Russian absolutism and Anglo-Saxon constitutionalism are not rival but antagonist powers. They cannot long continue to subsist together. Antagonists cannot hold equal position; every additional strength of the one is a comparative weakening of the other. One or the other must yield. One or the other must perish or become dependent on the other's will.

You may perhaps believe that that triumph of diplomacy is impossible in America. But I am sorry to say, that it has a dangerous ally, in the propensity to believe, that the field of American policy is limited geographically; that there is a field for American, and there is a field for European policy, and that these fields are distinct, and that it is your interest to keep them distinct.

There was a time in our struggle, when, if a man had come from America, bringing us in official capacity the tidings of your brotherly greeting, of your approbation and your sympathy, he would have been regarded like a harbinger of heaven. The Hungarian nation, tired out by the hard task of dearly but gloriously bought victories, was longing for a little test, when the numerous hordes of Russia fell upon us in the hour of momentary exhaustion. Indignation supplied the wanted rest, and we rose to meet the intruding foe; but it was natural that the nation looked around with anxiety, whether there be no power on earth raising its protesting voice against that impious act of trampling down the law of nations, the common property of all humanity? no power on earth to cheer us by a word of approbation of our legitimate defence? Alas! no such word was heard. We stood forsaken and alone! It was upon that ground of forsakenness that treason spread its poison into our ranks. They told my nation, "Your case is hopeless. Kossuth has assured you that if you drive out the Austrians from your territory, and declare your independence, it perhaps will be recognized by the French Republic, probably by England, and certainly by America; but look! none has recognized you; not even the United States, though with them it was from the time of Washington always a constant principle to recognize every government. You are not recognized. You are forsaken by the whole world. Kossuth has assured you, that it is impossible the constitutional powers of the world should permit without a word of protest Russia to interfere with the domestic concerns of Hungary; and look! Russia has interfered, the laws of nations are broken, the political balance of power is upset. Russia has assumed the position of a despotic arbiter of the condition of the world, and still nobody has raised a single word of protest in favour of Hungary's just and holy cause." Such was the insinuation, which Russian diplomacy, with its wonted subterraneous skill, instilled drop by drop into my brave people's manly heart; and alas! I could not say that the insinuation was false. _The French Republic_, instead of protesting against the interference of Russia, _followed its example and interfered itself at Rome_. _Great Britain_, instead of protesting, _checked Turkey in her resolution to oppose that new aggrandizement of Russia_; and _the United States of America_ remained silent, instead of protesting against the violation of those "laws of nature and of nature's God," in the maintenance of which nobody can be more interested than the great Republic of America.