Select Speeches of Kossuth

by Lajos Kossuth

[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.