Part 1 (2/2)

I must ask leave to make a remark on the system pursued by your Government in their Foreign relations. You consider yourselves a const.i.tutional nation: I fear that in some respects you are not so.

There is a Latin proverb [current in Hungary], _Nil de n.o.bis sine n.o.bis_,--”nothing that concerns us, without us.” This in many things you make your maxim. You say that none of your money shall be spent without your knowledge and approval; and in your internal affairs you carry this out; but I think that the secrecy in which the transactions of your diplomacy are involved is hardly const.i.tutional. Of that most important portion of your affairs which concerns your country in its relations with the rest of Europe, what knowledge have you? If any interpellation is made about any affair not yet concluded, my Lord the Secretary of the Foreign Office will reply that _he cannot give any answer, for the negotiations are still pending_. A little later he will be able to answer, that _as all is now concluded, all comment will be superfluous_.

One little fact I will just mention. By the last treaty with Denmark, to which you became a party, the crown of that kingdom was so settled that only three lives stand between it and the Czar of Russia. Three lives!

but a fragile barrier, when high political aims are concerned. It is therefore an allowed fact, that the country which commands entrance to the Baltic, and which, in the hands of an unfriendly power, would effectually exclude your commerce from that sea, may pa.s.s into the hands of Russia, whose pretensions in the south of Europe you take so much pains to check. This your government have done quietly. How many are there of your people that know and approve it? I hope you will not be offended, if I say, that I cannot understand how yours can be called in this respect a const.i.tutional country.

II.--MONARCHY AND REPUBLICANISM.

[_From Kossuth's Speech at Copenhagen House, Nov. 3d, 1851_.]

In my opinion, the form of Government may be different in different countries, according to their circ.u.mstances, their wishes, their wants.

England loves her Queen, and has full motive to do so. England feels great, glorious and free, and has full reason to feel so. But the fact of England being a monarchy cannot be sufficient reason for her to hate and discredit republican forms of government in other countries differing in circ.u.mstances, in wishes, and in wants. On the other side, to the United States of America, which under republican government are likewise great, glorious, and free, their republicanism gives no sufficient reason to hate and discredit monarchical government in England. It entirely belongs to the right of every nation to dispose of its domestic concerns. Therefore I claim for my own country also, that England, seeing from our past that our cause is just, should profess the sovereign right of every nation to dispose of itself, and should allow no power whatever to interfere with our domestic matters. Since I thus regard the internal affairs of every nation to be its own separate concern, I did not think it became me here in England to speak about the future organization of our country.

But my behavior has not been everywhere appreciated as I hoped. I have met in certain quarters the remark that I ”am slippery, and evade the question.” Now on the point of sincerity I am particularly susceptible.

I have the sentiment of being a straightforward man, and I would not be charged with having stolen into the sympathies of England without displaying my true colours. Therefore I must clearly state, that in our past struggle it was NOT _we_ who made a revolution. We began peacefully and legislatively to transform the monarchico-aristocratical const.i.tution of Hungary into a monarchico-democratical const.i.tution. We preserved our munic.i.p.al inst.i.tutions, as our most valuable treasure; but to them, as well as to the legislative power, we gave, as basis, the common liberty of the people, instead of the cla.s.s-privileges of old.

Moreover, in place of the old Board of Council,--which, being a corporate body, was of course a mockery in regard to that responsibility of the Executive, which was our chartered right on paper,--we established the real and personal responsibility of ministers. In this, we merely[*] upheld what was due to us by const.i.tution, by treaties, by the coronation-oath of every king,--the right to be ”governed as a self-consistent, independent country, by our native inst.i.tutions, according to our own laws.” This and all our other reforms we effected peacefully by careful legislation, which the King sanctioned and swore to maintain.

[Footnote *: Many Englishmen have unjustly accused the Hungarians as having by the laws of March, 1848, effected a SEPARATION of Hungary from Austria. _Even if this were true_, it could not justify the cause of the Hapsburgs. The dynasty yielded, under the pressure of circ.u.mstances (as alone will dynasties ever yield), while Hungary did but pet.i.tion legally, and was in fact unarmed. The dynasty swore to the new laws; and then conspired with Croatians, Serbians, and Russians to overthrow the laws by marauding and force of arms. In fact, if in January, 1849, Austria would have negotiated, instead of arresting all Hungarian amba.s.sadors, Hungary would have consented to modify the laws of March: but the Austrians had already in October ordered the overthrow of the whole Hungarian const.i.tution, and had no wish to do anything by legal methods.

At the same time, the original objection is fundamentally _false_.

No separation of the two countries was effected by the laws of March, 1848; for no legal union ever existed. Only the crowns were united, not the countries. Kossuth rightly compares the union to that which was between England and Hanover. At any time in the past, Hungary might have made _peace_ with a power with which Austria was at _war_, if the Kings had not falsified their oath by not a.s.sembling the Diet: for the Diet always had the lawful right of War and Peace. Any mode whatsoever of enforcing the Coronation oath, might, according to this logic, be condemned as a ”separating” of Austria and Hungary.]

Nevertheless, this very dynasty, in the most perjurious manner, attacked these laws, this freedom, this const.i.tution, by arms. We defended ourselves by arms victoriously. When upon this the perjurious dynasty called in the Russian armies to beat us down, we of course declared the Hapsburgs to be no longer our sovereigns. We avowed ourselves to be a free and independent nation, but fixed as yet no definite form of government,--neither monarchical nor republican. These are plain facts.

Hungary is not now under lawful government, but is being trampled down by a foreign intruder who is _not_ King of Hungary, being _neither acknowledged by the nation, nor sanctioned by law_.

Hungary is, in a word, in a state of WAR against the Hapsburg dynasty, a war of legitimate defence, by which alone it can ever regain independence and freedom. By such war alone has any nation ever won its freedom from oppressors; as you see in Switzerland, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, France, Sweden, Norway, Greece, the United States, and England itself.

I can state it, as known to me, with the certainty of matter of fact, that Hungary will never accept the Hapsburgs as legitimate sovereigns in the future, nor ever enter into any new moral relations with that perjurious family. Nor only so; but their perjury has so entirely plucked out of my nation's heart all faith in monarchy and all attachment to it, that there is no power on earth to knit the broken tie again: and therefore Hungary wishes and wills to be a free and independent republic,--a republic founded on the rule of law, securing social order, guaranteeing person, property, the moral development as well as material welfare of the people,--in a word, a republic like that of the United States, founded on inst.i.tutions inherited from England itself. This is the conviction of my people, which I share in the very heart of my heart.

III.--COMMUNISM AND THE SIBYLLINE BOOKS.

[_From Kossuth's Second Speech at Manchester, Nov. 12th_, 1851.]

I can understand Communism, but not Socialism. I have read many books on the subject, I have consulted many doctors; but they differ so much that I never could understand what they really mean. However, the only sense which I can see in socialism, is inconsistent with social order and the security of property.

Now since France has three times in sixty years failed to obtain practical results from Political revolutions, all Europe is apt to press forward into new Social doctrine to regulate the future. Believing then, that,--not from my merit, but from the state of my country,--I may be able somewhat to influence the course of the next European revolution, I think it right plainly to declare beforehand my allegiance to the great principle of security for personal property. Nevertheless, to give success to my endeavours in this direction, the rational expectations of the nations of Europe must speedily be fulfilled; else neither I, nor more important men, can avail to stay revolutionary movement. The danger of the case may be ill.u.s.trated by the ancient story of the Sibylline books.

Take Hungary as an instance. Three years ago we should have been extremely well contented with the laws as made by our parliament in 1848, _which laws did not break the tie between us and the house of Hapsburg_. But then Austria a.s.sailed us with arms, and it became impossible for us to go on with that const.i.tution; indeed she herself proclaimed it to be dissolved. We defeated her, and next she called in the Russian armies. Hungary was then under the necessity of _casting off the Hapsburg monarchy_; and only the third Sibylline book remained. Yet Hungary did not even then renounce monarchy, but gave instructions to her representative in England to say to the Government of this country, that _if they wished to see monarchy established in Hungary, we would accept any dynasty they proposed_: but it was not-listened to. Then came the horrors of Arad,[*] and destroyed all our faith in monarchy. So the last of the three books was burned.

[Footnote *: In Arad the Hungarian Generals, who surrendered by Gorgy's persuasion, were hanged or shot; and simultaneously Bathyanyi, who had been arrested when he came as an amba.s.sador of peace, was judged anew and murdered by a second court-martial.]

And so, wherever men's reasonable expectations are not fulfilled, it cannot be known where their fluctuations will end. Every man who is anxious for the preservation of person and property should help the world in obtaining rational freedom: if it be not obtained, mankind will search after other forms of action, totally subversive of all existing social order; and where the excitement will subside, I do not know. Men like me, who merely wish to establish political freedom, will in such circ.u.mstances lose all their influence, and others will get influence who may become dangerous to all established interests whatsoever.

<script>