Chapter 29
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.