Читать книгу Select Speeches of Kossuth - Lajos Kossuth - Страница 6

[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 circumstances, 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 circumstances, 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 constitution of Hungary into a monarchico-democratical constitution. We preserved our municipal institutions, 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 class-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 constitution, by treaties, by the coronation-oath of every king—the right to be "governed as a self-consistent, independent country, by our native institutions, 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 circumstances (as alone will dynasties ever yield), while Hungary did but petition 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 ambassadors, Hungary would have consented to modify the laws of March: but the Austrians had already in October ordered the overthrow of the whole Hungarian constitution, 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 assembling 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 constitution, 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 institutions inherited from England itself. This is the conviction of my people, which I share in the very heart of my heart.

* * * * *