[_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.]
* * * * *