.m HOLUNGER pH8J MILL RUN F3-1543 DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH AUSTRIA. HON. R. Mf Ti HUNTER. OF VIRGINIA, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 31, 1850, O-" ^' ' On suspem/ing our Diplomatic Relations with Austria. The Sentitc proceeded to the consideration of the foilowini,' resolution, submitted on the 24lh ultimo, i>y Mr. Cass: Resolvcil, That the Coininiltpe on Foreign UelatinnB he instrui'ind to inquire into tin- expcdifncy of suspending diplonintic rolaliona witli Austria. Mr. HUNTER addressed the Senate as follows: Mr. Presiuf.n't: 1 had supposed at one time that this resolution would have been permitted to sleep upon the table. Had such been the dispo- sition of the mover, I should never have called it up; for I had no desire to speak upon its merits. But when I found that we were to be pressed to a vote upon it, I felt it to be due to myself and those whom I represent, to ofler the reasons which in- fluence my vote. This resolution has not only the sanction of hi^h autliority here, but a large portion of the press has sustained it; and efforts nave been made to give public opinion such a di- rection as to place under its ban ail those who op- pose it. Gentlemen seem to suppose so, at least; ; for various propositions have been made to express i our sympathy, as a Government, for the Hunga- rians, in some other mode, by those who have op- ! posed this particular form of action. Most of those who have spoken .seem to contemplate the propriety at least, if not the necessity, of express- ing our sympathy in the Hungarian cause in some form of legislative action. As I find myself op- posed to the propositions which have yet been made upon this subject, it is perhaps necessary for my own defence to trouble you with a brief state- ment of my views upon this question; and in giving them I shall confine myself to the prop- osition before us. That, sir, if I understand it, proposes to suspend our diplomatic intercourse with Austria, for the purpose, avowed in debate, of expressing our indignation at the conduct of that Government in the late Hungarian struggle. Now,. sir, when this resolution is considered, with all its attendant circumstances, I am utterly opposed to it for many reasons. I oppose it, in the first place, because it is founded upon an utter misconception, as it seems to me, of the nature and objects of diplomatic institutions. This resolution seems to suppose that one of the uses which may be made of them is to reward or punish other Governments by continuing or sus- pending such relations, according as we ap- prove or condemn their course towards their own subjects. Now, sir, they have never been used as a means of punishing other Governments in any instance of which I can find an account in history. Ministers arc di.-imisscd in time of war, it is true, not as a punishment to the Government, but us a measure of safety and precaution at hoine. To use relations of this sort for such a purpose would be to reverse the design for which they were created. They were designed as the means of settling disjiutes and jircscrving peace; they are maintained to substitute the more convenient forna of oral conference for written communications. They bring the parties together, and by personal presence and proximity facilitate tlic settlement of differences. The whole object of such agencies is the preservation of peace, and it is contrary to the universal sense of civilized men to use such rela- tions as the means of national insult and offence. I am opposed to this proposition, also, for another reason. Supposing it to be founded upon true principles, its application is partial, unequal, and in that sense, is unjust. This objection has already been made, and a proposition, I believe, is now pending to add Russia to the list of the courts with which our diplomatic relations are to be suspended. Assuredly there would be as much reason for thus punishing Russia as Austria; for the offence is the same or even worse. What shall we say to France, too, if we are to assume this general supervision of the conduct of foreign Gov- ernments? Is there nothing in the course of the French Government in Italy to shock our repub- lican sensibilities? Have they not interfered against the rights of man and popular liberty, ac- cording to our conception of the terms? Nay, sir, the conduct of His Holiness himself is not beyond the reach of our criticism; for his course towards his subjects has' been utterly opposed to our view of his duties and their rights. We ought, then, in order to be just, to suspend our diplomatic relations with all of these courts — Austria, Russia, France, and Rome. 1 am not sure, sir, that the list would stop here, if I chose to pursue this ex- amination further. Cut it is unnecessary for my purpose to continue the investigation; 1 have said enough to show the inequality of the proposition as it now stands. But i have a tliird objection to this resolution, which is founded on the fact that it casts reproach on our history and past conduct towards foreign Governments — a reproach which, in my opinion, has not been deserved by thesages and patriots who have gone before us, or, indeed, I by any of those who have hitherto been responsible for the course of our Government. If, r.s this resolution assumes, it is our duty to observe ' the conduct of foreign Governments towards In-aiS} TTAS their own subjects, and to punish them in this mode for acts of oppression towards iheir citi- zens, or for violations of the rights of man ac- cording to our conception of tlieir nature, then, sir, in times past we have grievously failed in the discharge of our obligations. From the in- stiUition of our Government up to this period, how often ought we not to have exercised this power in the discharge of such duties ! With how many Governments should we not have suspended such relations at the lime of the partition of Poland ! With how many during the aggressive wars of Napoleon ! Which of the European nations would have escaped after the treaty of Vienna, and during the existence of the Holy Alliance? Why, sir, we could not have recalled ministers fast enough about that period to have signalized our abhorrence of the daily violation of the rights of man, in the arbi- trary disruption of territories long united together, and the forced connection ofpeople to Governments to which they were averse. I should waste the time of the Senate, if I were to attempt the enu- meration of the cases in which we have failed to act as this resolution assumes we ought to have done. Ho w often should we have suspended relations with France, with England! Indeed, what Government is there in the civilized world with whom we should not have suspended our relations at some period of our'history, according to the principles now laid down? Perhaps we might have pre- | served diplomatic relations with the republic of San Marino, by way of showing that it was possi- ble to maintain such a connection witli somebody, according to the principles of action which we had laid down upon such sulijects. Sir, if this resolu- tion be right, then our Government has been griev- ously wrong in its past course in relation to these matters. To vote for this resolution is to record that censure. For one, 1 am not willing to do it. I believe they acted wisely and well. They de- served the thanks of mankind for their foreign policy, which has won, as I had supposed, uni- versal respect. But, Mr. President, I object to this resolution, also, because it is indefinite in its nature. We are to suspend diplomatic relations for how long? Until Austria either establishes a government to |l suit not herself or the Hungarians, bn.t to suit us i; in that province, or until she makes an apology to | us for her misconduct to her own subjects. These |i are the only modes of atoning for the offence upon || which we have acted. Having once entered upon li the affair, we could not withdraw from it with 1 honor, nniil some such satisfaction was afforded. Should we have a right to expect such a termina- tion of the difficulty? Could we ever hope thus | to humble the pride of the Austrian Government? : I think not; and, if so, this suspension of diplo- ■ matic relations would be for an indefinite period. | But the question of time is not the only thing left , indefinite in these resolutions; the manner in which j the deed is to be done is also indefinite. We are ; to suspend diplomatic relations with Austria. In j what manner? By merely recalling our own min- I ister, or by offering passports to the Austrian j charge who is now near this Government? This resolution, to be consistent with itself, ought to do both; for these relations would not be suspended i if an Austrian minister were here. But it may be j said that, under the circumstances connected with ; the passage of this resolution, Austria would cer- ; tainly recall her minister. Undoubtedly, she would be forced to do so from self-respect; and, although it would have been more manly to have dismissed their minister at once, yet it would be done as cer- tainly and effectually in this indirect mode as in the other. We constrain the minister to depart as much by one mode of action as the other. Now, sir, if I am right in this construction of the resolu- tion — and I maintain that I am, whatever may have been the intentions of its author — we, in ef- fect, deny to Austria the right of embassy to us — a right secured to every sovereign Stale at peace with us by the well-established law of nations. I need not quote authors upon national law for so well-established a principle as that of the right of every sovereign State to send ministers to another .sovereign State whilst there is peace between them. There is no respectable writer on the law of nations, with whom I am acquainted, who does not recognize this right. Indeed, it belongs to the very nature of diplomatic functions that such a right should exist. These were created to settle disputes and secure peace. As ministers of peace,, these persons are respected by all civilized nations and men: civilized man shows his homage to peace by the .■securities and safeguards with which he surrounds such m.issions. Nay, under certain precautions and formalities, the right of embassy exists even as between belligerents; otherwise all the avenues to peace would be closed, except those of contjuest on the one side and absolute submis- sion on the other. It is and ought to be the uni- versal sense of civilized man that the doors of peace are never to be closed. Instances have beeh cited, 1 know, in contravention of this principle, but they were not even exceptions to the rule. It has been said that a Government may dismiss a foreign minister. So it may for his personal mis- conduct, but not for the act.'? of his Government, unless tills dismissal is the precursor of war. There are instances enough, I know, of minis- ters who were dismissed for personal offences which they could not claim to commit near another Government, under any immunity pretended to be derived from the law of nations. The Duke of Orleans, when Regent of France, during the mi- nority of Louis XV., imprisoned a Spanish min- ister; but hedetectf:d him in plots not only against his life, but his Government. So, too, in other cases of personal offences against the municipal law, or for insults offered to it, passports have been given by the offended Governments near which the ministers resided. But this right of dis- missal, even for alleged personal misconduct, is by no means absolute. We have had a very re- cent case in the dismissal of Sir Henry Buhver by the Spanish Government; and Lord Palmerslon, in his correspondence with M. Isluriz, the Span- ish minister, upon that subject, controverts very ably a doctrine which he alleges was advanced by the Duke of Sotomayor, " that any gov- '< ernment was entitled to obtain the recall of any ] foreign minister, whenever, for reasons of its ewn, I it might wish that he should be removed." "It ! is quite true," says Lord Palmerston, "as said by the Duke of Sotomayor, that the law of na- I tions and international usage may permit a gov- ernment to make such a demand; but the law of nations and international usage also entitle the Government, to whom such a request may be pre- ferred, to decline to comply with it." He says. ( ' f B in support of his view, that it may IiHppnn that the very cjiiise of tho dcsirfi lo ijct ml fif him is to be found it) the fidelity of the tuinister to his trust. He mt\y urs;e with perseverance a claiin of his own Government, which is dia.'iirr<"<'nl>le to the Government to which he is Bcerediied. But be this as it may, theRe instaiires do not nfTw't the rifflit of embassy, which belongs to every sover- eisn Slate whilst nt peace. To deny tills ri^hl ts an insult to the Government thus ii!;^;^rieved,and a violation of the law of nations. Vattel says, B. 4, chap. 5, sec. 63: "A RdVPreien alli'mptitiij lo liinitrr nnnllKT from Hrnrtin; and roceiviiii; puhlic iiiitiisli'rs does him an injury, and nf- fendiineainst lli(> law nriiiilioii.s. It it nltiickiiiK it iiiilion in one of its most vnluahii' rifjIiL-", and o|i|MiKini; wliiit ii.iuin: herself civcs to ovory iiidi-|)endi'ii( society. Il Is lirnikini; the bonds hv which natioMH are united, and ollt-nding them all." Why, sir, this denial of the ri£;ht of embassy to us by the French Government was once a c^use of p;rave complaint on our ]iart. The preamble of the act of Congress which, in 17!IS, abro^jated the treaties between us and France, recited the dis- mis.sal of our minister as one of the causes of Grievance which justified the course of the United States towards that I'ower — a course which led to the state of hostilities which was called "« quasi war." Why, sir, as I said before, lo deny the right of eml)assy, is to shut the door of peace; and I trust we shall not be found settinesuch an exam- ple in this age of boasted refinement and progress. When this resolution is viewed in connection with all its attendant circumstances, I think I might ' venture to challenge the production of a precedent which shall sanction it. There is, however, another, and, in my view, still more fatal olijection to the proposition before us. Il assumes the rijht of one Government to in- terfere in the domestic affairs of another — a right which would be dangerous, in the last degree, to the petice and liberties of mankind. If this reso- lution have any meaning at all, it must be intended as a rebuke to Austria for her conduct, not towards us, but towards her own subjects. The whole proceeding would be utterly without meaning, if It had not been based upon the avowed grounds of indignation and abhorrence at the course of the Austrian Government towards the Hungarians, to- wards its own sultjecls. Upon such ground.s as these, this measure would be a ffagranfand direct insult to the Austrian Government. An insult is :; an injury, and an injury often of the deepest kind. '' " National honor is national property of the lii^h- ! est value. The sentiment in the mind of every citizen is national strength. It oueht therefore to ! be cherished " — said Mr. Monroe in his inaugural ' address. Now, if we have a right to punish Aus- \^ tria for her conduct towards the Hun?arians in ! this mode, why not in any other.' If the right to j punish for such an offence exists at all, it must exist to such an extent as may he necessary to afl^ord a remedy for the evil. If we have the ri^ht to pun- ish them i)y insults, why not by blows ? No man ; can .show any distinction in principle between the j two pretensions. ' If the right exists at all, it exists to whatever ' extent may be necessary to make it effectual. •' Now this claim to punish a foreign Governmoiit for its conduct towards its own subjects assumed ' the right to supervi.'^e and control their manage- ment of their domestic affairs. Can any pretension • ' be coHL-ci ved which in more arrogant and insulting ? It is a virtual denial of the sovereignly of the for- eign Sinie u()on wlii'-h we are acting. For if Hovereicn at all, the government — no, the people — ' according lo our notions, conotitulc ihr sucireme nulhorily in the land, and ihey would not be su- preme in authority if another nation could control them. Mr. FOdTK. I do not wish lo interrupt my friend at all, but I am «ure he will be misunder- stood in a manner disagreeable lo himself. His present words would lead ua to understand — I do not believe he meant to be so understood — thai il is his o[)inion that the Government of Ausiiia ig legitimately supreme in Hungary, which I will certainly deny, and attempt lo prove if the hon- ; orable Senator insists. Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman had aifnded ' to what I said, he woulil have perceived that I ' modified the proposition so as lo adapt the propo- sition to our particular views. But it matters not ' lo this argument in what part of that body politic the sovereignty resides. Il is siiffirient for us that the sovereignty of that country is not in us, that it resides somewhere there, and is entitled to ronlrol the domestic afl'airs of that country, without su- pervision or interference on our [part. There is no supreme power there, if we can control it. Every existing Government is supposed lo be the crea- tion of the sovereign power in the State until it is overthrown, and foreign nations must respect it as the representative of that sovereignty, so long as it is clothed with its powers. I say, then, Mr. President, that this resolution assumes the right lo interfere in the domestic atTairs of olher nations, and in so doing makes a pretension neither con- sistent with the laws of mtions nor consonant with our own views of the rights of man. I will dispose of the latter liranch of the proposition first, because it may be done most briefly. Is not this assumption of control in the affair* of Hungary a' claim "pro tnnlo^'' of the right of government there? I see no distinction between the two: and, if so, we are claiming to govern those who did not delegate to us that right. I thought that it was a cardinal maxim with us, the fundamental prin- ciple of our institutions, that men had the right of self-government. And yet we claim the right to interfere in the domestic affairs of a people who gave us no authority to represent them, and of whose language, wishes, and necessities, we are ignorant. Do such pretensions as these square with our notions of republican principle.' I think not, sir; and yet, in our effort to show a sympathy for human rights, we are called unon so to net as to negative the most precious of all social rights — the right of man to self-government. But, Mr. President, this claim of interverftion is opf>osed to the law of nations; and this resolution renounces all that has been gained in the amelioration of that code for the protection of ihc right of self-govern- ment by the friends of human lilicrty in the course of the present century, .^.s the law of nations is now expounded, no nation is allowed the right of interference in the domestic affairs of another, ex- cept when it becomes rieces.sarv to do so for its own peace nud safety; or, in other wonis, in self- defence. Does our proposed interference in this cnse come within the exception which I have just stated .' No man can say that it does. Mr. Pres- ident, I will venture the assertion that, since the treaty of Westphalia, no such broad pretension has been made to the right of intervention by any civilized nation, which has not led to such conse- quences as discourag;ed the repetition of such acts, or which has not been opposed by some one of the first-rate Powers of Europe as a violation of the law of nations. I say since the peace of West- phalia, because that was a war of religion, a civil war in the great Christian republic between Catho- licand Protestant, who fought wheneverand where- ever they met each other, without reference to dis- tinctions of territorial boundary or of race. Since that time there have been cases of intervention, I know; but they were followed by the consequences which I have stated. I shall have cited to me, perhaps, the interference of other European powers with revolutionary France. But were the consequences such as to encourage the repetition of the experi- ment? Why, sir, France launched herself like a fire-ship amidst the nations of the earth, and kept all Europe in uproar and conflagration for nearly the third of a century. The consequences of this intervention were such as to teach Europe a les- son on this subject which it has remembered and respected. There have been two popular revolu- tions in France since that period; but no other Governments have interfered, although they prob- ably would have been glad to have done so, had they not remembered the past. France, herself, sir, has not forgotten the lesson; for she, too, de- clared the doctrine of non-intervention in the af- fairs of neighboring Governments, even in her first outbreak of republican zeal. The exception she made to the rule was, that she would interfere in favor of popular rights, if other nations interposed against them. Indeed, scarcely a case can be cited in which the powers interfeiing did not justify the act by assigning some other reason for it than that of the right to interpose. In the case of Greece, they justified themselves under the neces- sity — pretended jor real — of keeping open the Le- vant for their commerce. And so in relation to the interposition between Turkey and Egypt by certain great powers of Europe. They pretended, as a jus- tification , that they interfered to preserve the balance of power in Europe which was concerned in this question. Whether these pretences were true or false, the necessity for making them was a tacit homage to the great principle of non-intervention. It is true that the holy alliance did make at one time more extensive pretensions on this head than were recognized as just either then or now. These pretensions alarmed the friends of human liberty all over the world, and created great anxiety even here. This was one of the causes which led to Mr. Monroe's celebrated declaration, to which I shall presently refer more particularly. Great Britain, too, protested against these claims, which were viewed as alarming ever, to ner. She pro- tested against the intervention of other powers in the affairs of Naples as a violation of the law of nations, which she laid down upon this subject, as I have before stated. She refused to attend the Congress of Verona, and when France, under the sanction of certain of the great Powers of Europe, interfered in the affdirs of Spain, Great Britain de- clared it to be an infraction of national law and a just cause for war if she chose to make it so. Then it was that alarm was felt both in England and this country, lest the Holy Alliance should claim the right of interposing in the contest be- tween Spain and her colonies. Both Governmentg protested in advance, and the consequence of their joint action was the establishment of the non-inter- vention principle upon a firmer basis than it had ever rested upon before. This achievement was the great glory of Mr. Monroe's administration, which has challenged the respect and gratitude of the friends of liberty wherever they were found. The establishment of this principle is the great bul- wark and security of the right of man to self-govern- ment, so far as national law can protect it at all. Now, sir, how earnestly did we hope that it would be respected in the late French revolution ! How universally was it said that the hope for the success of France in that efibrt for liberty mainly depended upon the non-intervention of surrounding Powers ! Sir, we have had a very recent and an interesting instanceof the dangerand offensivenessof such pre- tensions on the part of one government towards another. One of the causes of the recent diflference between Great Britain and Spain grew out of a dispatch from Lord Palmerston to the Duke of Sotomayor, which the latter construed as an inter- ference with the domestic affairs of Spain, and therefore an insult. And yet this was not a public act of the English minister, but a private letter of advice to the Spanish Government to be more lib- eral in its concessions to its subjects. The Spanish pride took fire; it was resisted as an act of intru- sion and insult. The Duke of Sotomayor, in a letter to Mr. Bulwer, asks how the British Gov- ernment would take it, if he were to advise it to be more liberal to the Irish, more kindly to its Asiatic subjects, and less stringent in its coercive measures at home — referring probably to those made and designed for the suppression of riots. Did the British minister in ,his reply claim the right of interference in the domestic affairs of another nation.' On the contrary he excused the act upon the ground that it was a friendly letter of advice, designed for the Government only, and justified by the fact that his Government had rendered services to Spain, and was bound by treaty stipulations to aid and assist that Governmentagain, should there be a necessity for it. Mr. President, I believe it is the universal sense of mankind that the admis- sion of the principle of non-intervention is a corol- lary from the right of man to self-government and the existence of independence in a nation. Who that is familiar with the feelings of that period can for- get the anxiety with which we looked to the main- tenance of that principleatlhetimeof Mr. Monroe's celebrated declarations, or the importance which we attached to it.' We prepared ourselves to maintain the principle upon this continent, accord- ing to our own invariable practice towards the other nations of the earth, and were willing to stake all upon the issue. And yet here, in our own Senate, there is a proposition in direct opposition to that great principle, which at that time we were willing to stake everything to maintain. In 1823, I Mr. Monroe announced the foreign policy of the United States in such terms as these: "In tlie wars of European Povv(;rs, in matters rplating to themselves;, we have never taken any part, nor does it com- port with our policy to do so." " We owe it then-lore to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those Powers, to declare lliat we should consider any attempt on their pari to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangnrous to our peace and safety." " With the existingcolnniesanddependencie.-> of any ICiiropean Power we liave not interfered and shall not interfere. But with life Goveniments which liave de- dared their inilepoiiUencu nnd niuinliiiiinil it, ami wIiohc '' iiidcpcHd.'iii-r wi) liavi' on gri'iit CdiiHiiliriilinii and just |iriii- ci|iles ai'kiiiiwli'di;' otiier MiiUiiiur lln'ir df>(iny liy an Kiiropcmi I'owrr, in any otlirr li«lit than iw till' inaniriiHtaticm ol' an uiirrn lully dinpo- vtiiiii [(iwardM III!.' UnilL'd tjlatuH." A^ain, he siiyB : '! « Tlu! lato oveiit-s in Spain and Porlii|{al .-how that Kiiropo i la Htill iMiM'Khil. or this important lad no stroiiKir proof enn he addiiccil than that tin' iillii'd powirs slxmld have i Ihouulit it proper, on any prineipleii 8atisliictory to them- [ •elves, to have interpowd l>y I'oree in the interiiiil atlaira of l Spain. To what e.\ti-nt .such iiiterpotiition may he carried i! on the same principle, i.s a que.-^lion in which all iiide- 'i pendent powers, whose ROvernmi:iilii diller from theirs, are ! interested — even those most remote, nnd wiirely none more jj •o than the I'nited Stales. Our policy in regard to Kurope, ij which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which ! have so long agitated that quarter of the glohe, nevertheless j remains the same; which is, tiot lo inlrrfcre in llu- internal y concaiis of any of its poweri — to ooiisiiler the government i de facto as the legitimate govurnm<:nt for us to cultivate friendly relations with," &c. j These extracts, Mr. President, are sufficient to show that the great object of Mr. Monroe's de- clarations was, to protest against any departure , from the principle of non-intervention. lie as- ' serted what was historically true — that we had practised towards other Powcis upon this jirinciple from the institution of our Government to that period. Such, sir, has been the wise and consid- erate policy of our Government towards foreign nations heretofore — a policy which has preserved our peace with the rest of mankind for the greater portion of our national existence, which haschal- : lenged the respect of others, and under which , we ourselves have grown and prospered. Nay, more, sir: it has been our glory to have contrib- uted something towards procuring some of the advantages of the principle of non-intervention to other nations of the earth; and in doing so, we have added to the securities for the right of self- government in man. But we are now invoked to reverse this wise policy, and overthrow, as far as our declarations can do so, this great principle of international law, and, what is strange, we are invoked to do it under the pretence of showing sympathy for down-trodden humanity, and indig- nation at the violation of popular rights. Sir, what greater injury could we inflict on the cause of pop- ular rights in a system like the European — where arbitrary governments are the rule, and free govern- ments the exception — than to overthrow the princi- ple of non-intervention ? What new line of foreign policy could weadoptso likely to endangerourown peace, as to set the precedent of ourselves inter- fering in the domestic alVairs of others.' What greater outrage could we ofTer to the right of a people to govern themselves, than to assume the direction of affairs in countries not connected with H3 politically or physically, and over people who have never delegated to us such authority .' Where the authority is to be found for such an interfer- ence, I cannot divine — certainly not in the laws of nations, or in any ol the maxims upon which we have heretofore practised. 1 hear much said about the pulilic opinion of the world, and some talk of the punishment of those who sin against it. 1 fear there is some vague idea lurking in the popular mind, and insensibly influencing men to regard this public opinion of the world as a positive polit- ical force upon which it is allowalile for particular Governments to act. I have heard a reference made to certain very beautiful remarks of a Sen- ator from Mas.sachuscttB, upon the influence of public opinion upon this very Hungarian struggle, and it seems to hav?bcen supposed it wasaneces- sary conseriuencc of such views to entry out thia public opinion of the world in legislative action. Mr. President, I, sir, was struck with those re- marks; they were beautiful — and juht ns btauiiful, in the sense in which they were probably de- signed. Hut the public opinion of which he spnk« was not to bo executed by political or physical, but by a moral force; not a public opiimm to b« represented by any one Govt rnmcnt of the earth, or enforced by actual legislation. Sir, who or what body can undertake to collect or represent the public opinion of the world .^ A thousand in- visible rills swell the great stream of that public opinion whose current and whose course mark the s[)eed and the direction of the pro'^rcss of man. And who shall arm himself with physical force lo execute its decrees? Like heat and lighl, it per- vades the universe. It moves propio vigore — none can hasten or retard its cousre. Its subject is the hu- I man heart, its agents are thought and speech; it ia felt in every hamlet, in every house in the civilized world; unliiddcn, and often unwelcome, it enter« 1 where it will; it penetrates into the secret recessea ' of the soul of man; and the bravest and the mosi 1 reckless pause under that invisible touch which 1 can bind or loose the ties that unite him to his fel- 1 low. None so high as to be beyond itis reach; and low indeed must be he who is beneath its vis- itations. Arm it, sir, with physical power ! whal need has it of such assistanre.' When right, it ia irresistible as truth itself; and it is only when ■ wrong, when its own agentsare in rebellion againsl it, that its influence fails. As a moral power, its ' influence upoi) man is great and beneficent; it« 1 tendencies are towards the promotion of peace and progress; but once treat it as the subject of poli^- 1 ical action, and the whole scene is not merely i changed, but reversed. What had been a com- mon blessing, will become the scourge and tire : curse of mankind in the collisions which it would : occasion. Peace will no longer be the general ruW ' and war the exception, but war will be the rule I and peace the exception. I know, sir, that the sentiment is too prevalent, that this thing called 1 public opinion authorizes and licenses us to inter- fere with the affairs of our neighbors. This sen- timent is ihe result of that antagonism which ia - goins: on in this great moral world of ours be- tween the principles of individualism and social- ism — an antagonism found everywhere and daily irrowing fiercer and deeper. In a Slate it is the contest between him who would preserve as much ] of the right of individual action as is consistent :\ with the peace and security of society, and those who would give the majority not only the rights, ! but, in the end, the property of each and of alL If you take a more extended view, and look to I nations, you find the same antagonism at work between tho.se who maintain the independence' \\ of each nation, and its right to act according j to its own will, so long as it respects the equal ;! rights of others, and those who believe that i there is a sort of natural bond of federal union S! between the nations of the earth, and that every jl nation, under the authority of public opinion, is i! authorized to interpose and interfere with any and jj every other. The?e claim the right to take charge |l of the general interests of humanity, and oppose the 6 general will and opinion of man to the wishes and interests of any particular State. Sir, this attempt to set up the authority of the public opinion of the world in any particular State as above and beyond the sovereiii:nty of its people within their own borders, had its commencement, far as I can trace it, in the movements of Exeter Hall — movements emanating from excellent motives and pure designs, but which, nevertheless, led their authors to a sys- tem of interference in the affairs of others which has proved very dangerous to the peace of man- kind. Not content with acting upon their own Government, they undertook to move upon other nations, to influence their legislation. Not satisfied with the moral force of this public opinion as to the slave trade, which they were creating, they undertook to enforce it through political means and by physical power. Under their lead, their own Government became a general agitator on the sub- ject of slavery, intruded wherever it could upon the legislation of other countries, and had well- nigh, under the sanction of the public opinion of the v/orld, interpolated 9. new and dangerous pro- vision in the code of national law. The distin- guished Senator from Michigan was one of those who resisted this pretention most successfully, and he has won much just reputation by those exer- tions. But, sir, the evil has continued to increase. The same spirit of interference to which I have alluded as existing abroad soon reached our own country; and States have tampered and meddled with each other without just authority, until there is confusion throughout the land, and unhappy disputes have accumulated much more rapidly upon us than the means of settling them. Sir, we hear of world's conventions upon all possi- ble subjects, to bring associated power into play, for the purpose of bearing on and bearing down wills of individual men, or of individual nations, who oppose their movements. This results from the illusory idea, which I fear is far more prev- alent than is supposed, that there is a public opin- ion of mankind which is above tlie constitution and laws of particular States — an authority whichjusti- fiesus in meddling in the internal aftairs of other na- tions. Sir, we seean evidence of this to-day in the very resolution before us; for what but the idea that ouropinionasa people was entitled, asa component part of the public opinion of the world, to a cer- tain political force in other countries, could prompt such an interference as is contemplated in the do- mestic affairs of the Austrian Government? Mr. President, I am averse to all these centralizing and socialist movements. I belong to an older, and, 1 trust, a better school of politics. I belong to the school which believes that government to be happiest and best which leaves the largest measure of the liberty of individual action which is con- sistent with the peace and safety of society; to that school which maintains that it is best for all the nations of the world that each of them should be left to enjoy its right of independent action in all cases in which its exercise is consistent with the equal rights of others. I know, sir, that in society these are the centripetal and centri- fugal forces, and that the order of nature con- sists in a just equilibrium. Increase the one too much, and the body flies to the centre, about which it should revolve; give an undue prepon- derance to the other force, the mass dissolves, and its wandering atoms are lost in space. In all human affairs there is a just mean; but I do not know that I could define in what it consits; nor would this be the time to do so, if I could do it. No matter how uncertain the point at which this mean may be found, sure it is, that the central- izing tendehcies have passed it. The tendency of every new movement seems to be in this direc- tion: to centralize and associate power seems to be the great object of political achievement at the present day. Sir, I at least have no sympathy for these movements. Neither can I claim for myself that extensive spirit of philanthropy which distin- guishes some gentlemen upon this floor. Espe- cially, sir, can I make no pretentions to such a philanthropy as that which a Senator from New York claims for himself. I mean, sir, that Sen- ator who would gather all mankind into one indis- criminate embrace, and who loves them all alike — in whose affections no distinctions are made as to the race, color, or condition of man, and who loves all men equally, whether they be English, French, German, Tartar, Negro, or Hottentot. Sir, the Senator from New York doubtless is an exception to the rule; but, as a general rule, I never knew one'of those men, who loved all mankind alike, who cared much for anybody but himself. I never knew one of them who, to borrow a favor- ite expression from my friend from South Caro- lina, " had not a hand for all, and a heart for none." But, sir, the Senator from New York is an exception, doubtless, to this rule. He loves all mankind, except himself,and would perhaps have loved himself if he had been born in Ireland. Mr. President, I have no such philanthropy; and I fear in that matter generally, I shall be deemed as little better than one of the wicked. I know, sir, that I shall be accused of a want of sympathy for the Hungarians, whose case excites sc much atten- tion here. So far as I am personally conctrned, I care nothing for such accusations, for I have a wit- ness within me which pronounces them false. But, sir, I should be unwilling to inflict a new pang upon the unfortunate Hungarian, by doing anything to give countenance to the idea that there was any mar, or class of men here who did not respect and sym- pathize with him in his misfortunes. I was no un- interested observer of his struggle — no unmoved witness of its final catastrophe. If my good wishes could have availed him, he had them all. I have studied their history with interest, and learned to admire and respect their national character. There is a wild mixture of Oriental fervor and western chivalry about them which has always made them objects of rather a romantic interest. History, that great record of human affairs, is full of start- ling contrasts and striking vicissitudes, and th« chapter of that great book which belongs to Hun- gary and her people is nearly as eventful as any. When I first heard , sir, that the Hungarian patriots had been forced to take refuge with the'Turk, and seek at his hands the charity of an asylum which Christendom refused them, I could but recall the day when that country was the bulwark of Christen- dom against the Infidel, and Hunniades made good its title to that debatable land between the Crescent and the Cross. When I saw who the oppressor was, whose foot was upon the neck of bleeding Hungary, I could but recur to the time when a noble ancestress of his, who to the loveli- ness of woman added the soul of a Cresar, threw herself upon those people for succor and protection. The scene nrose before me, as it nnpenrs on the pictured pn^e of Macuulay, in whicli she in rejire- eented iifpon horsuljack, weuk from recent sutl'iTiiii:, yet strotii; in will, tliiHlied under the weight uf St. Slepiien's inm crown, uud after a fashion of iier race, which would luwc been deemed exiravaKanl by any but an Oricnlul muif^uuition, wuviuf; the sword of State to the four quartei'H of tire heavi tin, and liiddini:; defiance to the earth. Still more visi- bly cauu; before me that other .sc(Mie, in winch the youMi; mother, with her child in litr arms, ap- peared before thcassembled matjuales of 1 lun^ary, and, coinplainiiifj that she wa.i deserted and op- pressed by the re.stofthe wculd, denuuided assist- ance and protection from them; ar.d, quick in answer to that appeal, all voic:c3 re.sponded a.s one, in the exclamation, " Let us die for our Kin;;; Maria Theresa!" True, even in that moment of enthusiastic fervor, not only to the jirinciplcs, but to the very formsoftheirconsiitutional liberty, they de- voted themselves not to the Empressof Germany, nor to the Clueen of Austria, Init to " their Kin^ Maria Theresa;" and king she was in all but her sex. The promise then made was redeemed in their blood; and the Croat, the Pandou, and the Hussar, as it is said, swejji the face of northern Germany, until their very names became words of terror wherever they were known. The faithful paije of liistory will attest how often the house of Flapsbufij has been indebted to the Hungarian lance and Hungarian loyalty for assistance in time of need. Never has it despaired when the road was left open for retreat from Vienna to Hun- gary; nor has it ever considered any of its defeats as total whilst reserves were yet left upon which it could retire in that land so devoted to its colors. It was an unhappy day for that house which dis- solved the spell of its name in Hungary, and broke the chain of old traditions which had mutually bound them together. It is hard to unite again the bonds of love, when once they have been severed; and the Hungarian will loiice in its re- ! cent struggles, a knowledge of the truth which il I teaches may be worth all the sufl't ring which I brought the truth home to il, that its hopes rested I on a cordial pariicipatiim in the great Sclavonic I movement. If there is tio hope here for the Hun- garian, I .'