M. KOSSUTH AT MANCHESTER.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 692, 20 March 1852, Page 4

M. KOSSUTH AT MANCHESTER.

[We have extracted from the Times of November 12, the following speech delivered by M. Kossuth at the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, to an audience of 7000 persons. We believe our readers will feel gratified in having an opportunity of judging of the eloquence of one who has created such a sensation in England, and who certainly is gifted with great fluency and power of expression, and who as a foreigner has wonderful command of the English language. The speech at Manchester appears to us the most favourable specimen of M. Kossuth’s eloquence we have met with.—Eu. Spectator.'] M. Kossuth then rose, and was greeted with most enthusiastic cheers, which were prolonged for some minutes. When the applause had subsided he proceeded to deliver an address, of great part of which, from its extreme length, we are unable to give much more than an outline. He said that if they had come there expecting to hear him deliver an eloquent speech, he feared they would be disappointed, for since his arrival in this country —the mighty protector of mankind —he had been so much occupied in receiving the sympathies of the people of England, that he bad not had sufficient time to prepare an eloquent speech even carefully elaborated in words, although he fell that here, where every word was caught up by that press which was the protector and guardian of all progress, every word should be weighed, and especially weighed by a person in his position. He must claim their indulgence to excuse the faults of his language, for he felt bis words must but weakly express his feelings. It was said of Pyrrhus, the King of Epirus, that he sent a messenger to ancient Rome, who, on his return, reported to his master that he had seen a city of Kings, where every man was as much a King as the King of Epirus himself. So he (M. Kossuth) might say that he had seen the public opinion of the English people pronounced in such wise that, as Lord Brougham, he believed, had once said, in the voice of the people the thunder of the Almighty was felt. He had received a most kind greeting at Southampton, and addresses had been sent to him from all parts of the kingdom so numerous, that in reading and answering them be had some idea of the public opinion of England ; but he saw that public opinion incarnated in the great demonstrations of London, Birmingham, and Manchester, and those demonstrations loudly proclaimed, “ Ye oppressed nations of Europe, be of good cheer (hear) ; the hour of delivery is at hand.” (Cheers.) He had experienced enough in his public life to know that public opinion which was pronounced by the people of England in that cause of which he was one of the humble representatives might be dissimulated for a while, it might be jeered at, but at last obeyed it must be(“hear,” and cheers) ; because England was a constitutional country, and in a constitutional country the public opinion was paused by law, by right, by constitution, to give direction to Government and Parliament, He knew what power public opinion had a right to claim in this glorious laud, and, because he knew it, he might be permitted to say that he thanked the people of England and the people of Manchester for their great aid in the cause of humanity, not in his own name only, but in the name of oppressed nations. “ Since my arrival on England's happy shores,” M. Kossuth continued, “ I have had a continual opportunity of bearing the pronunciation of that public opinion in respect of a question the solution of which is ostensibly marked out by Providence to be the test of our time—a question which will decide the fate of mankind for centuries. This question is not only of scanty, partial interest; it is not only a noble commiseration for the misfortunes of individuals or of one country. It is a question of national interest in which every country, every people is equally interested. I say equally interested. There may be a difference as to the succession of lime at which one or the other nation will be affected by the inevitable consequences of this question. But, affected they will be all, one the day sooner, another a day

later,--but it is a mere question of time. And no country, no nation, however proud its position, but and chiefly none within the boundaries of the Christian family and of European civilization, can avoid a share of the consequences of this comprehensive question, which will be the proximate fate of humanity. I scarcely wanted to say this comprehensive question is whether Europe should be ruled by the principle of freedom or by the principle of despotism. (Cheers.) To bring more home in a practical way to your generous hearts that idea of freedom, the question is whether Europe shall be ruled by the principle of centralisation or by the principle of selfgovernment. (Hear, hear.) Because self-go-vernment is freedom, and centralization is absolutism. What! shall freedom die away for centuries, and mankind become nothing more than a blind instrument for the ambition of a few ; or shall the brand of servitude be wiped away from the brow of humanity ? Woe, a thousandfold woe, to every nation which, confident in its proud position of to day, so carelessly regards this all comprehensive struggle for these great principles. It is the mythical struggle between heaven and hell. To be blessed or to be damned is the lot of all ; there is no transition between heaven and hell. Woe, a thousandfold woe, to every nation which will not embrace within its sorrows and its cares the future, but only the passing moment of the present time. As the sun looms through the mist before it rises, so the future is seen in the events of the present day. There are some who endeavour to counteract the expressions of sympathy which I have the honour to meet to the narrow circle of personality. They would fain make believe that there is nothing more in these demonstrations than a matter of fashion—a transitory ebullition of popular feeling, passing away like a momentary bubble, or, at the utmost, the tribute of approbation to the bravery of a gallant people in a just cause, and of consolation to its unmerited misfortunes. But I say it is not so. I say that lhe very source of this demonstration is the instinctive feeling of the people, that the destiny of mankind is come to a turning-point for centuries. (Cheers.) It is the cry of alarm upon the ostensible approach of national danger. It is the manifestation of the instinct of self-preservation roused by the instinctive knowledge of the fact, that the decisive struggles for the destinies of Europe draw so near, and that no people, no country, can remain unaffected by the issue of this great struggle of principles. (Hear, hear.) We have been told that the despotic Governments of Europe have become weak ; that lhe despotic Governments ol Europe feel their approaching death ; and if it be so, I hope the struggle so called forth will be the last in mankind’s history. In stating this case as I conceive it, I say it is not my individuality, it is not my presence which roused any new feeling, any new sentiment. I am nothing but the oppot'.unity which elicited the hidden spark—the opportunity at which the instinctive apprehension of approaching danger to nations burst forth in a loud cry of alarm. Else how can a sophist explain the fact of the universality of these demonstrations, not restricted to my presence, not restricted to a climate, not restricted to the singular character of a people, not restricted to a society’s organization, but spreading through the world like Hie pulsation of one heart or like the spark from an electric battery. (Cheers.) The numerous addresses, full of the most generous sentiments, which 1 am honoured with tn England nre not an effect of my presence here. I have kindled a spark among a great people, and from the metropolis of the world down to the solitary hamlet all join in the same voice; and I humbly entreat you to consider that this is not restricted even to England itself. The glorious people of he United States, Italy, France, the noble-minded English garrison in Gibraltar, the warm-hearted Portuguese, all have joined in this voice; andon the very day when a deputation came over to England to honour me with the greeting from Belgium, that lofty monument of the love of freedom and of its indomitable force, I got lhe knowledge that a similar demonstration had taken place in Sweden. Now, is this an accident ? Is this fashion ? Is this personal ? Have I anything in my person, in my present, in my future, not to justify only, but to explain, this universality of demonstration ? Nothing. Not entirely nothing ; only the knowledge that I am a friend to freedom, though I am but the oppoitunity for the manifestation of that instructive feeling of so many nations. The dragon of oppression draws near, but the St. George of liberty is ready to wrestle with him. (Cheers.) How can I state that this struggle is so near ? Why, I state it because it is. Every man knows it; every man sees it. A philosopher was once questioned how he could prove the existence of God ? “ Why,’’ answered he, “ by opening my eyes.” (Hear.) God is seen every where. In the growth of the grass, and in the movements of the stars ; in the warbling of the lark and in the thunder of the heavens. Even so I prove that lhe decisive struggle of mankind’s destinies draws near. I appeal to the sight of your eyes, to the pulsations of your hearts, and to the judgment of your minds. You know it, you see it, you feel it that tile judgment is drawing near. (Hear, hear.) How blind are those men who have the affectation to believe, or at least to assert that it is only certain men who push the revolution on the continent of Europe, which but for their revolutionary plots, would be quiet and content. Content 1 (“ Hear” and Cheers.) With what ? With oppression and servitude? France content with its constitution turned into a pasquinade, Germany content at being but a flock of sheep pent up to be shorn by some 30 petty tyrants 1 (Cheers and laughter.) Switzerland content with the threatening ambition of encroaching despots, Italy content with the King of Naples, or with the priestly Governmentofßomc—the worst of human invention—Austria,Bohemia,Croatia, Dalmatia, content with having been drive no butchery after having been deceived.oppressed, and laughedatas fools! Poland content with being murdered ; Hungary, my poor Hungary, content with being more than murdered—buried alive. (Loud cheering.) Because it is alive. (“ Hear, hear,” and renewed cheering.) What I feel is but a weak pulsation of that feeling which in the breast of my nation beats. Prussia content with slavery, Vienna, Flensburgb, Pestb, Lombardy, Milan, Venice, content with having been bombarded, burnt, sacked, and their population butchered ; and half of Europe content with the scaffold, the hangman, the prison ; with having no political rights at all, but having to pay innumerable millions for the high, beneficial purpose of being

kept in serfdom. (Hear, jhear.) That is the condition of Europe’s continent. And is it not ridiculous to hear and see: men prate about individuals disturbing lhe contented tranquillity of Europe? (“Hear, hear,” and cheers.) Now why are there no revolutionary movements in England ? Why the tranquillity and peace of England and Belgium ? Because you want no revolution. (“ Hear, hear,” and cheers.) Because you are insured bv your institutions and your public spirit, that whatever here in England is just and requisite to be cone —because no human thing is perfect (hear, hear) — it wi.l be done. (Loud cheers.) I would see the man that would stand up here in England to make a revolution ! (Cheers and laughter.) But there, on the continent of Europe, on the greatest part at least, ye tyrants of the world have disturbed peace and tranquillity. Ye have shaken the very foundations of it, and it will not, and cannot, be restored till ye are hurled down to annihilation, ye sworn enemies of mankind's freedom, welfare, and dignity. (Loud cheers.) Only let us cast back and look at the gigantic battle fought against Napoleon. The promise of freedom of that day, it brought the nations into the fight. Then came the Congress of Vienna, where the ambitious masters of the world disposed of mankind like cattle herds. But even there the interference of England in the settlement was a guarantee to mankind for some constitutional life at least, and even your Castlereaghs were wise enough not to abandon Europe to oppression. (Hear, hear.) The constitutional life and existence of Poland, Sicily, and many other nations, wete guaranteed. Where is Poland now ? Where is constitutional Europe ? And here I would put the question to the very statesmen of England who belong to the most retrograde school, is the present condition of Europe that lor which in those days the people of England shed their blood in torrents, and spent innumerable millions; for which they are taxed even now, and will be long yet taxed, to pay only the interest of those millions? The promises of those despols turned out to be a perjury ol falsehoods. France bestirred itself, and the despots trembled, and hushed the nation to sleep by new promises, new engagements, new lies. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Ob, how humble they were in those days 1 I have seen some of them. I have weighed them in this hand of mine. Formerly they broke only their words ; now they were saved by arms from the consequences of their sworn oaths, and every tie was broken—every sentiment was violated. Prayers to God were mixed with curses against despots, and Europe’s oppressed nations shook their chains, and weeping millions deplored their present position. This is the present state of Europe’s continent; at least of the greatest part; and still there are men speaking of regard for these despots, while they are silent upon the duties towards humanity ; speaking about the dangers of offending tyrants, while they are silent about the dangers of disregarding the condition of mankind. But the people of England have not disregarded it. The people ol England have instinctively felt that we are on the eve of the day when liberty or despotism must be crushed down. The people of England have felt that their own freedom is in intimate connexion with the victory of the principle of freedom on the European continent. They have felt that it is only the solidarity of nations which can secure humanity against the solidarity of despotism, and it is of these tilings my bumble self has been, by a ruling Pi evidence, chosen to furnish an opportunity. I have in some measure to represent the cause of Hungary. It is Russian interference in the affairs of Hungary which put the bond of serfdom on the neck of Europe. It is the unmerited fall of my nation which brought to your minds, and those of other nations, the idea that if not soon opposed by the principle of freedom embodied in energetic action, the moment is near when Europe will be almost entirely Cossack. You must be aware without an independent Hungary there is no bulwark against Russian preponderance on the continent; and I beg you to be aware of what the people fee] instinctively, that the cause of Hungary is the incarnation of the principle of self-government, which has no future in Europe but from the independence of Hungary. I was anxious to establish this point, and in order that I may not be charged with importunity when I humbly presume to ask the people of England, who can give a practical meaning to their sympathy, whether the cause of Hungary is not only an object of generous commiseration but a question of European coming interest, I cannot forbear to support my view by the argument of a gentleman whose opinion is as disinterested as important, he being one of the candidates of the democratic party for the future presidency of the United States.” M. Kossuth proceeded to read several long extracts from a speech delivered (at the banquet recently given to M. Kossuth at Southampton) by Mr. Walker, of the United States, who expressed his opinion that if despotism should be re-established throughout the continent of Europe, it would assail the free institutions of England, that a conflict between the principles of freedom and of despotism was close at band ; and added that if, when England should be summoned to the support of the freedom of Europe, she desired the aid and countenance of his country, it would be cheerfully accorded. “He (M.Kossuth) believed he had every reason to look with confidence to Manchester with regard to the practical issue of the sympathies of the people of this country,— Manchester was a young city. In 1720 it was a village of 24,000 souls, and now it was the first manufacturing city of lhe world, with nearly lialf-a-million of inhabitants. That people who had so grown up was a practical people, and therefore he looked for a practical result. (Hear, hear.) Another ground of his confidence was, that Manchester and Liverpool were the most powerful links between Europe and the United States. Commerce was the locomotion of principles. (Hear, and cheers.) It was a glorious thing to offer the suppart of the public opinion of England to the United States for the purpose of union in the policy of both countries in respect to Europe. That union would be the victory of the principle of freedom, because the United States and England, uijited in their policy, could not side but with freedom. When he went to the United States in a lew days, he would consider it to be one of his duties to try if he could not be a humble opportunity for the pronunciation of the solidarity sentiment of nations for the principle of liberty. (Hear.) It |vas necessary, however, to have true and exact definitions. Now, in the

United States, one universal principle was held of non-intervention in European affairs. \ ery wise were the men who established that principle, and those who had followed it; but neither of them could ever have meant that their principle of non-intervention should preclude the United States from paying any regard to the claims of humanity. He took it as a fair principle that one nation had no right to interlere with the domestic affairs of any other country ; and that any nation might, if it choose, be a republic, a monarchy. or even a despotism, according to its own free will. That was the principle of nonintervention ; but that was r.ot non-intervention which would be defined in these words—that they did not care what might be the fate of humanity, or what the despots of the world m ght do with Europe and mankind. (Hear, hear.) He supposed there was no doubt the policy of England and of the United States could unite, and, when those powers were united, he confi lently hoped that without war all the artificial links of mankind’s oppression would be broken. He further looked with peculiar hope to Manchester, because Manchester carried the principle of free trade. What Manchester undertook it would carry. (Hear, and cheers.) Now, it might perhaps be strange what he said, but he was deeply convinced of this —he said that free trade was not carried yet. Cheaper bread might be had, but free trade was not carried. It would be carried when the producers of English industry should have a free access to the markets of Europe from which, by the absolutist principle, they were now excluded. M. Kossuth then entered into some statistical details, showing the comparative value of the exports from this country to Austiia, Russia, and the United States, and argued (as he did at the recent meeting in Co-penhagen-fields) that as our exports to the American States far exceeded those to Austria and Russia, the effect of the absolutist principles was to exclude British goods from continental markets. He believed that if the principle of free governments were universally adopted the trade of this country would be extended to the amount of £50,000,000 or £60,000,000, or more than the whole taxation of Great Britain and Ireland. Before he came to Manchester he was asked by many persons what he could have to do there, as there were in Manchester many influential individuals who were so intimately connected with the Peace Association ; while he (M. Kcssuth) must, of course, be aware that what Austria," by Russian arms, had taken away from Hungary she would not restore if possible. He looked confidently for support to several of the great associations of England. He hoped the cause would be supported by the religious associations of this country, as in Hungary freedom of conscience was put down by despotism. (Hear.) Even at this very day lhe Protestants in Hungary shut their schools, because they were forced to surrender their education, and give it into the hands of the Austrian Jesuitical Government. He also looked for the protection of the reform societies, the free trade societies, the associations of the friends of Italy, as, of course, the cause of Hungary and Italy was identical. He openly declared that to none of all those associations did he look with more hope of a generous support than precisely to the Peace Association, and he was convinced from tha speech of Mr. Bright that be had not looked for the support of that association in vain. Peace could only be founded upon the contentment of nations, and that contentment was the only garden in which the tree of liberty grew. He would now, in a few words, state what were the practical results which he, in the name of his poor country, and in the name of humanity, would entreat from the sympathies of Manchester. Into their considerations perhaps some substantial aid might enter. He declared that never in his life from no person in the world he would accept anything. His life was a proof of it, but for the triumph of liberty of his poor country he would not be ashamed to go begging from door to door. (Cheers.) But there were yet other things to which he looked for a practical result. First, public opinion had pronounced itself, but this public opinion must go on pronouncing itself. He also confidently declared his belief that the present system of secret diplomacy, as now pursued by the Foreign-office, was a question of great importance to England. It depended entirely upon how the foreign relations of this country might be adjusted, whether they should not Lave free trade in Europe. He therefore humbly entreated the people of England to bestow their attention upon the state of the foreign relations of the country. He hoped that at meetings, by petitions, and by the press this question of diplomacy would be discussed. He confidently asked a pronunciation of the public opinion of England, of the sovereign right of every nation to dispose of its domestic affairs, and of the principle of non-interference. He found that a report of an answer he had given to an address presented to him stated him to have said he considered that in Europe there was no form of Government possible than a republic. That was a misunderstanding. He never said so. He considered that the form of government must be different according to the peculiar circumstances of one or other country. Freedom was in England under a monarchical form, as well as freedom was in the United States, and there was social order. He was himself of republican conviction, with the principles of social order ; and he considered that for Hungary, to make it contented, after what had passed, no other form was possible ; because the people had lost every other form. He hoped the present day would not finish without some benefit to the cause of his poor native land, and to the cause of humanity. M. Kossuth concluded thus : —“ People of Manchester, let not the world, let not history say that, on the eve of the last struggle between despotism and liberty, you had nothing better to give to the principle of freedom than the consolation of tender breasts. People of Manchester, people of England, speak—speak with manly resolution to the despots of lhe world. Cry stop ! The puppets will fall, and you will have given freedom to lhe world.” [At the conclusion of his address, which occupied upwards of an hour and a half in its delivery, M. Kossuth was greeted with loud and rapturous cheering.]