The instinct of the people is in the life of a nation precisely that which conscience is in the life of man. Before we, in our private life, arrive at a clear conviction what course we have to adopt in this or that occurrence, the conscience—that inexplicable spirit in our breast—tells us in a pulsation of our heart what is right or what is wrong. And this first pulsation of conscience is very trustworthy. Then comes the reflective operation of the mind: it now and then lulls conscience to sleep, now and then modifies particulars, and now and then raises it to the degree of conviction. But conscience was in advance of the mind. So is the instinct of the people—the conscience of nations. Nor needs the highest intellectual power of individuality to feel offended at the idea that the instinct of the people is always the first to feel the right and wrong. It is the pulsation of the heart of the nation; it is the advertisement of conscience, which never heaves without reason, without necessity.
Indeed, gentlemen, it is not my presence here which elicited that majestic interest for national law and international rights. Nay, I had not been here, but for the pre-existence of this interest. It raised glorious interpreters during the struggles of Greece, when, indeed, I was yet too young to be in public life. It flashed up, kindled by Poland's heroic struggles, and it blazed high and broad when we were fighting the sacred battle of independence for the European continent. Had this interest and sympathy not existed long ago, I were not now here. My very freedom is the result of it.
And may I be permitted to mention that there were several concerns quite unconnected with the cause of Hungary, which have much contributed to direct public opinion to feel interested in the question of foreign policy, so naturally connected with the question, What is international law?
Your relations with Mexico and Central America; the threatened intervention of European powers in the possible issue of a recent case which brought so much mourning into many families in the United States; the question about the Sandwich Islands, which European diplomacy appeared to contemplate as an appropriate barrier between your Pacific States and the Indian and Chinese trade; the sad fate of an American citizen now condemned to the galleys in Africa; and several other considerations of pressing concern, must necessarily have contributed to excite the interest of public opinion for the settlement of the question, What is and what shall be law amongst nations?—law not dictated by the whims of ambitious despots, but founded upon everlasting principles, such as republics can acknowledge who themselves live upon principles.
The cause of Hungary is implicated with the very questions of right, in which your country in so many respects is concerned. It happens to lie so broad across the principles of international law, as to occupy not only the instinct of the people but also the calm reflection of your statesmen, conspicuous by mature wisdom and patriotism; and herein is the key, besides the generosity congenial to freemen, why the cause which I plead is honoured with so rapid a progress in public sentiment.
And let me entreat your permission for one topic more. I received, during my brief stay in England, some one hundred and thirty addresses from cities and associations, all full of the same warm sympathy for my country's cause, which you also have so generously testified. That sympathy was accorded to me, notwithstanding my frank declaration that I am a republican, and that my country, when restored to independence, can be nothing but a republic. Now this is a fact gratifying to every friend of progress in public sentiment, highly proving that the people are everywhere honourable, just, noble, and good. And do you know, gentlemen, which of these numerous addresses were the most glorious to the people of England and the most gratifying to me? It was one in which I heard your Washington praised, and sorrow avowed that England had opposed that glorious cause upon which is founded the noble fame of that great man; and the addresses—(numerous they were indeed)—in which the hope and resolution were expressed, that England and the United States, forgetting the sorrows of the past will in brotherly love go hand in hand to support the eternal principles of international law and freedom on earth.
Yes indeed, sir, you were right to say that the justice of your struggle, which took out of England's hand a mighty continent, is openly acknowledged even by the English people itself. The memory of the day of New Orleans must of course recall to your mind the wrongs against which you so gloriously fought. Oh, let me entreat you, bury the hatred of past ages in the grave where all the crimes of the past lie mouldering with the ashes of those who sinned, and take the glorious opportunity to benefit the great cause of humanity.
One thing let me tell you, gentlemen. People and Governments are different things in such a country as Great Britain is. It is sorrowful enough that the people have often to pay for what the government sinned. Let it not be said in history, that even the people of the United States made a kindred people pay for the sins of its government. And remember that you can mightily react upon the public opinion of Britain, and that the people of Britain can react upon the course of its own government. It were indeed a great misfortune to see the government of Great Britain pushed by irritation to side with the absolutist powers against the oppressed nations about to struggle for independence and liberty. Even Ireland could only lose by this. And besides its own loss, this might perhaps be just the decisive blow against liberty; whereas if the government of England, otherwise remaining as it is, do but unite with you not to allow foreign interference with our struggles on the continent this would become almost a sure guarantee of the victory of those struggles; and, according as circumstances stand, that would be indeed the most practical benefit to the noble people of Ireland also, because freedom, independence, and the principles of natural law could not fail to benefit their cause, which so well merits the sympathy of every just man and they have also the sympathy—I know it—of the better half of England itself.
Hatred is no good counsellor, gentlemen. The wisdom of love is a better one. What people has suffered more than my poor Hungary has from Russia? Shall I hate the people of Russia for it? Oh never! I have but pity and Christian brotherly love for it. It is the government, it is the principle of the government, which makes every drop of my blood boil and which must fall, if humanity is to live. We were for centuries in war against the Turks, and God knows what we have suffered by it! But past is past. Now we have a common enemy, and thus we have a common interest, a mutual esteem, and love rules where our fathers have fought.
Gentlemen, how far this supreme duty toward your own interest will allow you to go in giving life and effect to the principle which you so generously proclaim, and which your party (as I have understood) have generously proclaimed in different parts—that you will in your wisdom decide, remaining always the masters of your action and of your fate. But that principle will rest; that principle is true; that principle is just; and you are just, because you are free. I hope therefore to see you cordially unite with me once more in the sentiment—"Intervention for non-intervention."