■ # \ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. \ # ^■- ^ " i UNITED STATES OF AMER'ICA.|| Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from The Library of Congress http://www.archive.org/details/replytoprofoabroOOstal / / / REPLY PEOF. 0. A. BKOWNSON'S LECTURE NON-INTERVENTION BEFORE THE MERCANTILE LIBRARY ASSOCIATION OF CINCINNATI. A LECTURE DELIVERED IN SMITH & NIXON'S HALL, CINCINNATI, FEBRUARY 20, 1852, B Y J. B. STALLO. /A3i CINCINNATI: PUBLISHED FOPw THE COMMITTEE, BY C. A. MORGANT & CO. 1-852. CINCINNATI : Morgan (f- OvcTcnd, Printers. CORRESPONDENCE. CINCINNATI, MARCH 4, 1S52. Deak Sir: — Your reply to Dr. 0. A. Broavnson's lecture on non-intervention ■was received by the audience, at Smith & Nixon's Hall, with very great favor. After its delivery, a meeting was organized, which resolved to tender you a vote of thanks, and also unanimously resolved that a copy of the discourse should be requested for publication and general circulation. We have been appointed the committee under the last resolution, and we hope you will not refuse to furnish your manuscript accordingly. Allow us to congratulate you, sir, on the promptitude and ability with which you have discharged your duty, and to tender you the thanks of your numerous auditors. W. M. CORRY, ) B. STORER, } Committee. E. M. GREGORY,^ John B. Stallo, Esq. REPLY. CINCINNATI, MARCH 6, 1852. Gentlemen: — In compliance with your request I herewith transmit the man- uscript of my lecture in reply to Professor Brownson. Though fully sensible of its many defects, which may partly be accounted for by the very few hours left me for preparation, and perfectly aware that its only merit is derived from the justice of the cause which it became my duty to advocate, I do not feel at liberty to withhold it from publication, if it is thought that this can, in the least degree, serve the sacred interests of liberty and truth. Very respectfully, yours, J. B. STALLO. Messrs. W. M. Corrt, i Bellamy Storer,> Committee. E. M. Gregory, ) STALLO'S LECTURE. On Tuesday evening, February 17th, a lecture was delivered in this hall before the Mercantile Library Association, by Prof. Brownson, on the subject of non-intervention. On the ground of the well known opinions of the gentleman, of the sentiments contained in a recent lec- ture delivered by him in St. Louis, and of the position which he occu- pies at the goal to which his long erratic course of more than twenty years has brought him, no one, I presume, came to his lecture with the expectation of finding in him a champion of the Hungarian cause, or of European revolutions generally. The friends of the gentleman — those who profess the same creed with him in politics or religion — flocked around him for the purpose of having their own vague ideas ■and sympathies more sharply defined by his noted ability to state his propositions prominently and distinctly, and of having founda- tions furnished for their theories from the full store of his reading and logic. Those, on the other hand, who like myself, did not share the Professor's opinions, came to hear what could be said in confuta- tion of their own views — views partly resting upon earnest reasoning and inquiry, and pai'tly, perhaps, derived from the prevailing current of popular belief; and many of these, I know, brought with them a candid readiness to be convinced of the falsity of their positions, and, however reluctantly, to abandon them, if Professor Brownson's arguments carried such a conviction. But all, whether friends or opponents, came to hear arguments, not denunciations ; facts, not gratuitous statements ; historical truth, not the mere garblings of a prejudiced partisan. And the whole auditory, being a republican one, withal, came prepared for any thing but an onslaught on the very pillars of republicanism itself, with which our own cherished institutions must, in the end, stand or fall. Whether or not the different sections of Professor Brownson's auditory were disappointed, it is not my province to determine. I, for one, come to enter my protest both against his theories and his statements of fact. Let me say, however, that I do not come to arouse public indignation, or to create popular excitement. I do not mean to dispute the merit which Professor Brownson claims for the F O STALLO S LECTURE. man who lias the courage to stand forth, singly and alone, if need be, against the prejudices of the multitude, and to maintain his bal- ance on the ground of his own reasoning and investigation. But you will concede that the man who thus opposes himself to millions, who ventures to pronounce the dissenting opinion of one mind at the great tribunal where nations and mankind must be judged at last — the tribunal of public opinion, or, rather, of the public conscience, the conscience of nations and mankind — who dares to climb to the lofty summit of future centuries, and anticipate the verdict which time will pass on history and its events — that such a man should see to it, that his facts and principles are genuine, that his premises are correct, and that his conclusions are legitimate. It is my task with you to ascertain if Professor Brownson, in his lecture, meets these requirements. The positions taken by Professor Brownson may be summed up as follows : I. The right of revolution; tluit is, the right to violently overthrow a legally exist- ing government, is a right which no nation ever did or can possess. II. The war in Hungary was such a revolution ; an attempt violently to over- throw a legally existing government. Our American war of Independence was no revolution: by the Charters creating the United Colonies, there was an express or implied contract between the Crown of Great Britain and the Colonies, which was broken on the part of Great Britain, and thereby the Colonies became released. The United Colonies had been made independent by the act of their former Sovereigns; and that fact the Congress of 1776 only declared. Hungary, on the contrary, is not an independent nation. It is, and for more than three hundred years had been, an integral part, a subject province of Austria. Its union with Austria is not a personal one, nor is it such a one as arises from the fact that the Emperor of Aus- tria and the King of Hungary are the same person. From these two propositions — proposition first being the major, and proposition second the minor — Professor Brownson draws the conclusion that the war in Hungary, being a revolution or rebellion, was unjustifiable, and that its leaders, now our honored guests, are imported traitors. Professor Brownson argues further, and says : III. The cause of Hungary was bad; it was not a struggle for liberty, but against liberty — a war of oppression carried on by the Magyars against the other races. IV. Russia had the right to intervene, because she was called upon by the Sover- eign of Austria to suppress rebellion, and on the principle of self-preservation, because the revolutionary movements in Hungary endangered her own political exis- tence. STALLO S LECTURE. 7 Several other propositions of Professor Brownson — e. c, that our intervention would be impolitic, unavoidable, etc. — I have not time here to discuss. I am at issue with Professor Brownson in all these several propo- sitions, and will now proceed to consider them seriatim. The first proposition of Professor Brownson, (and this, as all others, I quote literally from the report in the Commercial, which, although considerably softened in some of the expressions used by Professor Brownson, by being filtered, I suppose, through the mind of a republican reporter, may be taken as correct in the main), is as fol- lows: " The right of revolution; that is, the right of a violent overthrow of an existing form of government to introduce a different one, is a right which no nation ever did or can possess." In Professor Brownson's lecture on Socialism, delivered in St. Louis, (and reported in the St. Louis Times of February 5th, 1852), he expresses himself as follows: "By revolution I understand the violen*; overthrow of a legitimate form of government for the purpose of introducing another form, which the revolutionists think will be more advantageous to themselves, or for the public good." Stated most favorably to Mr. Brownson, his proposition is this: " Ko nation has the right violently to overtlirow a legally existing, a legitimate government." There would be no controversy between Professor Brownson and myself as to the truth of the abstract princij^le, "that no nation has the right to overthrow a legally existing, a legitimate government," if the meaning attached by him and myself to the words "legal" and "legitimate" were the same. We must then examine what is Professor Brownson's test of legal- ity of the legitimacy of a government. Obviously there are but three kinds of sanction which can be imagined as constituting the legitimacy of a government, viz: 1st, the sanction, the consent of the governed; 2d, the sanction of the governing powers; in oilxav \i oxdiS, governmental authority sa,nction- ing, constituting itself, which amounts to mere existence de facto, and 3d, the sanction of God — either directly or indirectly through the Church or the Pope — divine right. ^ovr, first, Professor Brownson's criterion of legitimacy cannot be the consent of the governed, of the nation ; for in that view a revolu- tion, in the sense of Professor Brownson, a violent overthrow of the government, would be an absurdity. Such a revolution would sup- pose a nation consciously arrayed against itself, the will of the nation warrina: ao-ainst itself. 8 STALLO'S LECTURE. If Professor Brownson contends, however, that a government in 1848 is legitimate in consequence of a sanction given by a former generation, c. c, in 1687, then I answer that a former generation has no right to give the consent of the succeeding generation. If the year 1687 had the right to speak for the year 1848, and say what ought to be its legitimate government, the year 1848, e converso, has the right to speak for 1687, and to say what ought to have been the legitimate government then. Moreover, I propose to show, hereafter, that in the case in hand, the Austrian government, such as it claimed to exist in 1848, was not sanctioned by the Hungarians in 1687, or at any other time. Nor, secondly, can Professor Brownson mean to claim divine right — the sanction of God, or of the Church and its alleged head — as the I basis of legitimacy ; for the establishment of the House of Hapsburg { on the Hungarian throne was due to conquest, not to ecclesiastical I investiture. Afterward, up to the time of Joseph I — who ascended I the throne of Hungary in 1705, and was the first hereditary king of I Hungary — the Hungarian crown was conferred upon the several I kings by election of the Hungarian Diet. In general. Professor Brownson Avill be able to find very few sovereigns in Europe or ; elsewhere, on whom the Church or Pope conferred sovereign author- ity ; but I can find him several instances where the authorities of the ! Church sided with the people against the established government. j During the first part of the reign of Andrew 11, of Hungary, who j mounted the throne in 1207, the then reigning Pope threatened the I king with an interdict, for doing the very thing which the late Haps- I burg Princes — and among them Ferdinand V and Francis I — have j attempted to do, viz : interfering with the municipal affairs of Hun- j g'^ry; and the "Bulla Aurea" then issued by the Pope expressly j recognized the right of resistance, in other words, the right of revo- j hition in the 2^eopl€. And, I apprehend. Professor Brownson would ! be doing his Church very little service by saddling upon her the I responsibility for the many iniquities which have been perpetrated by ! the Austrian kings and emperors in the name of Professor Brownson's j ^'legitimacy." i If, then, neither the consent of the people nor the sanction of the I Church constitutes the legitimacy of a government with Professor I Brownson, what lemains? Obviously, nothing else than authority ! existing by its oivn sanction — exisfmg de facto, which, in plain English, I is successful usurpation. The ruler possesses the power; therefore STALLO S LECTURE. 9 he lias the right to it. Might creates right. Professor Brownson is driven to this. This is the only legitimacy which he can claim ; and, bearing this in mind, his first proposition now reads thus : "No nation has the right violently to overthrow an existing government, no matter how established," which is an utter absurdity. But suppose, for a moment, that the actual existence of a government could constitute legitimacy, what follows ? Certainly the most complete justification of the revolutionary government in Hungary. If the Hapsburg rulers had the right to subvert the Hungarian constitution, and on its ruins to establish an Austrian Empire, then, certainly, several millions of Hungaiians had the right to crush the Austrian dominion, and on its ruins to rear the temple of republican freedom. The only question would be, whether or not they were able to do it. But, says Professor Brownson, the government of a nation may be changed by legal methods, that is to say, according to the provisions of the existing constitution, as in our country. That would be very true ; but the constitution of the Austrian Empire, so far as there is any, contains no provisions for a change, except the will of the king. In order to change the constitution of Austria, for instance, during the reign of Ferdinand V, it would be necessary to change the physical constitution of the man, the king or emperor, which is a strange method indeed, Ferdinand V being a hopeless idiot. Again, Professor Brownson continues : "Law is, by its very nature, binding ; not only externally, but internally — not only on the indi- vidual, but on the whole people." Undoubtedly, properly under- stood, lazv, by its very nature, is binding. But laws which are binding, essentially or by their very nature, are binding because they are laws of nature or of God. In a certain sense, civil laws may be reduced to laws of nature. Man is, essentially, a social being; he necessarily depends, in his existence, upon the coexistence of his fellow-men ; and the laws of the coexistence of men — as interpreted by the intelligence of society, and enounced as its will — are binding from their very nature ; because, only by observing them man's coexistence with other men — and, therefore, his own existence — is possible. To set these laws at naught would be the suicide both of individuals and of society. These laws, which are essentially binding, enforce themselves just as effectually as the laws of nature, ordinarily so called ; and you can violate them with as little impunity. But to say that all law — which is so styled by any body, merely because it IS ni the form of an enactment — is binding, is doing such outrageous 10 ' ■ STALLO'S LECTURE. violence to reason and common sense, that it exceeds my power of comprehension to think that any one could seriously entertain it. It may be said that I do not lay sufficient stress on Professor Brownson's word violent overthrow — that he admits the right of the whole nation, including the rulers, peaceably, by its will, to change the government. But the question Avhich Professor Brownson treats, is, whether nations, exclusive of the existing rulers, have the right to overthrow the government, or, stating it most strongly, whether even the ivhole governed, people have the right to overthrow the existing government, against the will of the existing rulers " legally" in power. Such an overthrow is always a violent one, "by its very nature;" and it makes no difference vfhether or not the word violent is used. By denying the right of violent overthrow. Professor Brownson denies the right of overthrow in toto. On the whole, if Professor Brownson has ohiter dicta in his lecture, such as the following: " when the king has proved himself a tyrant, he forfeits his right," etc. — which seem to acknowledge the right of the people, after all, to judge for themselves what tyranny is, and to abolish that tyranny — it is a contradiction which I leave to Professor Brownson himself to reconcile. I state his premises as he himself states them, and as he must abide by them, tvithotit qualification or exception, in order that they may lead to and support his conclusion. After having thus disposed of P]-ofessor Brownson's first principle, his major proposition, it is, indeed, almost superfluous to consider his other points. But I follow him to the second proposition, which is this : " The war in Hungary -was a revolution — an attempt to overtLroxr a legiti- mate government. Our American war of independence was no revolution; it is called a revolution only by misnomer. By the charters creating the United Colonies there was an express or implied contract between the Crown of Great Britain and the United Colonies. That contract, on the part of Great Britain, was broken ; and being so broken, it released the Colonies. The Colonies became, ipso facto, independent states; they were made so by the act of their former sovereign ; and they only declared that fact; and that was all the Congress o/1776 did. " Hungary, on the contrary, is not an independent nation. In the list of independent nations, no such nation has been known these three hundred years. Hungary constituted an integral part of Austria, ancZ is just as much bound to the Emperor as the kingdom of Bohemia, the Lombardo-Venetian kingdom, or THE Archduchy of Austria. It is not fair to suppose the union between Hungary and Austria is only what writers on international law call a personal union, such as once existed between Hanover and England — such a union as would arise from the fact that the sovereign ia both countries was one and the same person."' STALLO'S LECTURE. 11 In answer to this proposition, I remark, that I am not aware that the charters of all or any of the United Colonies contained an express guarantee against those usurpations of power of which the Declaration of Independence complains, and which, according to the doctrine of Professor Brownson, constituted a breach of contract on the part of Great Britain, and released the Colonies. There was tyranny, but no breach of contract. Certainly, our Declaration of Independence puts the justification of our secession from Great Britain mainly and prominently on the ground of the eternal rights of 7nan, and not on the ground of previously granted charters and privileges; and ifc sounds strange to an American ear to learn, from Professor Brown- son, that we now have the right to be free and govern ourselves, because we "were made independent states by the act of the former sovereigns of Great Britain." But waving this question — admitting that our war of independ- ence is to be justified on the ground of a violation of compact between Great Britain and the Colonies, and that the United Colonies became independent states, because they were made so by the act of their former sovereign — does the distinction made by Professor Brownson between the relation of the Colonies to Great Britain on the one hand, and of Hungary to Austria on the other, obtain? What are Professor Brownson's facts, and what are his arguments in support of them? Professor Brownson states that Hungary is an integral part of Austria, and has not been an independent natio7i for three hundred years. Let us first see what Professor Brownson wants to prove, in order to make out his case, and then by what means he does it — what is the nature of his testimony. He wants to prove that Hungary has no separate and independent existence as against Austria ; not that she has no separate existence as against foreign nations: for he wants to prove that there is no compact between Austria and Hun- gary, the breach of which by Austria could release Hungary, as the alleged breach of our compact with Great Britain released us. He w^ants to prove there can not be such a compact, because there is but one party, "Hungary being an integral part of Austria:' It requires two to make a contract. Now, how does Professor Brownson proceed to show that Hungary has no separate and independent existence as against Austria? I quote his own words : 12 STALLO'S LECTURE. "Hungary is not a complete state — not a state known to any foreign power. Our government has relations "with Hungary only through Austria. There is no perfect ministry accredited to Hungary. " The Hungarian soldiery — i. e. the Hungarian contingent of the standing army of Austria, which represents the force of the empire for external defense — take the oath of fidelity to the Emperor of Austria." A mere glance at this "formidable array of facts" will show that they all go to establish, only, that Hungary Aas no sejMrate existence AS AGAINST FOREIGN POWERS; jiot that it has no separate and inde- pendent existence as against Austria, which is the only question at issue. These facts do not touch the question at all. With regard to the last part, it must be borne in mind that the soldiery spoken of is the standing array, unconstitutionally levied in Hungary for the first time by Charles III, who came to the throne in 1711, to which all further addition must be voted by the Hungarian Diet. Not the militia of Hungary, but the Hungarian regiments (sixty thousand) i j of the standing army of Austria took the oath to the Austrian Em- peror ; and this is no more an argument against the independence of Hungary from Austria than the Swiss regiments of the former King of France were an argument against the independence of Switzer- land from France. But let us examine the precise facts of the case. The direct con- nection of the House of Hapsburg with the Crown of Hungary began with the year 1526, when Ferdinand I waged war against John Zapolya, the crowned King of Hungary. In a manifesto, which Ferdinand then tendered to the Hungarian nobility, he de- clared "that he Avould preserve inviolate all the rights and liberties of Hungary." In 1538 the peace of Groswardein was concluded, in which Ferdinand was established as King of Western Hungary, John Zapolya being recognized as the lawful sovereign of Eastern Hungary and Transylvania. In 1551 Isabella, widow of John Zapo- lya, ceded the Crown of Eastern Hungary and Transylvania to Ferd- inand for an indemnity to her, and thus the House of Hapsburg- Lorrain came to the throne of Hungary. We have here a case, partly of conquest and partly of cession, by a person having no right to cede; a very curious starting-point for Professor Brownson's "legitimacy." But the Hungarian crown remained elective until the accession of Joseph I, who came to the throne in 1705; Leopold I having, in 1687, after a series of the most bloody cruelties, by w^hich the Hun- garians were tamed down, obtained the consent of the Diet to a law. STALLO'S LECTURE. 13 which settled the right of hereditary succession on the male line of the House of Hapsburg. Even Professor Brownson will now con- cede, I hope, that previous to that time the Hungarian nation, hav- ino- a rio-ht to break off all connection with the House of Hapsburg by simply electing a prince of some other house, was free and inde- pendent. This is about one hundred and fifty years, ago instead of the three hundred claimed by Professor Brownson. But more than that : The Austrian Empire exists only since the year of our Lord 18U6, when Francis I (formerly Francis II) abdi- cated as Emperor of Germany, and styled himself Emperor of Aus- tria. Now, Professor Brownson will hardly contend that Hungary ever was an integral part of the Empire of Germany, or of the Archduchy of Austria; so that if Professor Brownson is right in makino- Hungary an integral part of Austria, it can, in the nature of things, only be true for the last fifty years or less. That brings Professor Brownson down from three hundred to fifty years — rather a falling off — '^ Facilis descensus Averni!" But I contend that Hungary now is and always has been free and inde]}e7ident — far more independent of Austria than the United Colonies of Great Britain — and that the union between Hungary and Austria is precisely such as results from the fact, that the King of Hungary and the Emperor of Austria are one and the same person, SL personal union. To show this, I might advert to the well known fact, that the Hapsburg Kings of Hungary often bore different names in Hungary and their other dominions. Charles III of Hungary, e. c, was Charles VI of Austria. But the following facts, which will not be denied by Professor Brownson, or any other Austrian authority, are conclusive : No Emperor of Austria, though crowned Emperor, has any au- thority in Hungary until he has been crowned in Hungary, and taken the coronation oath, in which he swears "to preserve and maintain the Constitution of Hungary." In order that this subject may be fully understood, it may be as well to give a short exposition of the Hungarian Constitution, or rather of the organization of the Hungarian monarchy, such as it existed before the events of 1848. I have already said that since 1 705, or, to go back to the time of the Diet, when the act in reference to this subject was passed, since 1687 the Crown of Hungary became hereditary with the House of 14 STALLO'S LECTURE. Hapsburo-. The " Pragmatic Sanction," in 1723, extended the hered- itary right to the female line of the same house. Ever since that time, the reigning monarch of the Hapsburg dynasty has been the constitutional king, the executive officer of Hungary. His chief pre- rogatives were to approve the laws, or absolutely to veto them — to execute the laws — to appoint all executive officers — to superintend the mint — to appoint the judges of the Curia Regia, etc. But by himself he could pass no laws, he could levy no taxes, he had noth- ing to do with the municipal government of the State or of the indi- vidual counties. The general legislative powers of the State were intrusted to the Diet, which consisted of two houses — the table of Magnates, and the Chamber of Deputies. The members of the former were thirty- five Catholic Bishops and Archbishops, and one Greek Archbishop, fifty-two official Counts of Hungary, and fourteen of the highest officers of the State, together with all titled barons, counts, princes, etc., not holding office. The latter — the Chamber of Deputies — counted one hundred and four voting members — two representatives from each of the fifty-two counties — all elected. The President was appointed by the King. The Chamber of Deputies had one right in common with the King, that of initiating measures, of proposing laws to be passed by the Diet. The judiciary of the realm consisted of royal courts, of which, the judges held their offices by royal appointment, and of baronial courts, which were, of course, independent of the King. It will thus be seen that the Hapsburg monarch, whose regal power in the Archduchy, and in most other States, was almost un- limited, was confined within constitutional limits in Hungary, and this fact alone completely establishes the entire independence of Hungary from the other Austrian dominions. But to put the fact beyound all controversy, the Hapsburg mon- archs have always recognized the independence of Hungary. There are instances enough where the Hungarian Constitution has been infringed and sought to be destroyed — where the Austrian system of centralization has been attempted to be practiced on Hungary. There is no lack of usurpations, and the whole history of the Haps- burg rulers in Hungary is almost one continued series of usurpations ; but those usurpations have been invariably resisted, and the Haps- burg monarchs have repeatedly been brought expressly to assert the independence of Hungary. STALLO'S LECTURE. ^ 15 Thus, Article X of the decree of Leopold 11, in 1790-91, says: " Ihingariam esse regnum liberum, et relate ad totam legalem regi- minis formam inde'pendens, id est, nulli alteri Regno aut populo ohnox- ium, sed proimam habens consistentiam et constitutionem, propriisqite legihus et consuetudinibus, non vero ad normam aliarum 2)rovinciarum 7'ege7idu7n et gubernandimi." " That the Hungarian kingdom is, with respect to the whole legal form of the realm, independent; that is to say, subordinate to no other kingdom or people ; but has its own consistency and constitu- tion, and is to be governed according to its own laws and customs, and not after the manner of the other [Austrian] provinces." This recognition was repeated several times during the reign of Francis I, particularly in 1811 and 1825. The protest of the Hungarian Diet, December 2, 1848, contains the following passage : "Hungary and the districts and counties annexed to it are not, and never have been, parts of the Austrian dominions; but form an independent country, which possesses its own constitution, and can only be governed according to its own laws, framed with the consent of the people." And, in spite of all this, Professor Brownson gravely assures you, that, in the list of independent nations, no such nation as Hungary has been Tcnown these three hundred years; that Hungary is an integral part of Austria; that the union of Hungary with Austria is not the personal one arising from the fact that the King of Hungary a.nd the Emperor of Austria are the same person. I might go farther, perhaps, and contend that there is, at present, not even a personal union between Hungary and Austria, and that Francis Joseph is a mere intruder. By the act of 1687, and the "pragmatic sanction" in 1723, the Crown of Hungary became hereditary in the male and female line of the House of Hapsburg. After the death of Ferdinand, therefore, Francis Joseph might have been entitled to the Crown. But ''nemo est hceres viventis," "no man is the heir of the living;" and Francis Joseph owes his Crown to the abdication of Ferdinand, who is still living, and the I'enuncia- tion of the heir-apparent. Now it is certainly very questionable whether Ferdinand had the right, without the consent of the Hun- garian Diet, to abdicate and transfer the Crown, at his will, to an individual who may die before him, and thus never acquire any hereditary rioht. 16 STALLO'S LECTURE. But, certainly, until Francis Joseph is crowned in Hungary, and has taken the coronation oath, he is a usurper; and there is no legal union whatever, personal or integral, between Hungary and Austria. It may be justly contended, therefore, that the Hungarians, in their late struggle, fought in the name of their constitutionally- crowned king, against a daring usurper; that they did not seek vio- lently to overthrow a legally existing government, but to maintain it; and that not the leaders of the Hungarian vrar were the traitors, but the monarchs of the Hapsburg line. And if the United Colonies, if our patriotic forefathers had the right to declare themselves independent on the ground of Professor Brownson's alleged contract contained in the colonial charters, which is said to have been broken on the part of Great Britain, then, a fortiori, Hungary, which had an indubitable contract with the House of Hapsburg — the constitution solemnly sanctioned by the coronation oath of seven, or, excluding Joseph II, six hereditary Hapsburg kings — which enjoyed an independence not granted by those monarchs, but existing ^nor and superior to them — Hungary, I say, had the right to declare itself free and independent, and to fall back upon its ancient, indisputable rights. I now come to Professor Brownson's tJdrd proposition, which is the following: " The cause of Hungary was bad; it was not a struggle for liberty, but against liberty — a war of oppression, carried on by the Magyars against the other races." These are Professor Brownson's words: " Hungary has twelve millions, or more, of inhabitants. Out of these, about four and a half millions are of the Magyar race, the others of the Sclavonic. The Magyars are an Asiatic tribe, of kindred origin with the Turks. They conquered that country, and made their establishment there. They have remained there; and, by their laws and institutions, hold the greater portion of the conquered race in subjection and vassalage. None but Magyars, like our national guest, could be freemen or noblemen, nor could they hold real estate ; they could not have the rights of freemen, nor the rights of citizens ; the whole political poioer being in the hands of this riding race; and while they held the whole political power, all the land, the whole territory of Hungary proper, they were released from all taxes, all burdens of supporting the state, except the Magyar arms. It is true, that after the union with Austria, she had exerted herself to obtain some rights for those vassals — Sclavonic serfs— that were held in subjection by the ruling caste ; true, that they had sought to lighten the burdens that the Magyars had imposed on the Sclavonians ; and true, that, in order to do so, Austria had sometimes exerted her full power ; aud I (Prof. STALLO'S LECTURE. 17 Brownson) ■will not deny that she exerted an arbitrary power in enforcing on Hungary the principles which recognized those poor serfs as men, etc. These are all the acts of tijranny or oppression that I (Professor B.) ever knew to have been inflicted on the Magyars. The Magyars had no right to complain, unless they insisted on their own right — the historical right to oppress and trample their own fellow-beings in the dust. The Hungarian struggle was not, there- fore, a movement in favor of liberty at all, except the liberty of one race to rule another. That is all it was in its origin ; and if, toward the conclusion, other doctrines were proclaimed, and a liberation of the peasantry was prom- ised, it was not in the origin contemplated, but was the last desperate measure resorted to in order to sustain a drooping cause, which it was felt could not be sustained without it. There was no movement, therefore, on behalf of liberty, freedom, or the rights of man; but a movement on behalf of the power of four and a half millions of Hungarian subjects to hold in subjection over six millions of their fellow-countrymen, but a different race. In a contest of that sort there was nothing requiring the interference of a foreign nation — no principle of national independence violated ; and if there should be an intervention at all, it should be not in favor of the Magyar, but of the slaves of the Sclavonic race, who were really contending for liberty. They were really contend- ing for liberty, for their independence, for their equality with others ; and ■we, as the friends of equality, if we are to feel any sympathy at all, it should be, not with the ruling Magyars^ but with the Sclavonic race that was oppressed." If but one half the charges here preferred by Professor Bro^wn- son against the Magyars, against the Hungarian patriots, and against tlie leaders of the Hungarian revolution, are founded in fact, then, indeed, the sympathies of a free and generous nation have never been enlisted in an unholier cause than that ■which at this moment moves the hearts of Americans, from Maine to Louisiana; then, indeed, Professor Bro'wnson discharges a sacred duty in denouncing our Hungarian guests as imported traitors, and Kossuth — " This outward sainted deputy, Whose settled visage and deliberate word Nips youth i' the head, and follies doth enmew. As falcon doth the fowl — is yet a devil 1 " LET FACTS SPEAk! Even before the year 1848, there was no distinction "whatever between the different races and religious denominations, as to the right of citizenship and the right to o'wn lands, with ttvo excep- tions, ■which, however, are not in favor of, or against, the Magyar. One exception is, that in Croatia a Protestant could not — and can not now, I think — hold real estate ; the other exception is, that in 2 18 STALLO'S LECTURE. Transylvania all the Szeklers are nobles or freemen, and three of the races in Transylvania — viz : Szeklers, Saxons, and Wallachians — have a separate political representation as races. The statement of Professor Brownson, that none but Magyars were freemen or noblemen — that they only could hold real estate — that the Magyars -wave the noblemen, and the Sclavonians the peas- ants or serfs of Hungarjr — is utterly erroneous. There were before 1848, and are now, Magyar nobles and Magyar peasants, (perhaps about three hundred and fifty thotisand Magyar nobles, and more than five millions Magyar peasants); Sclavonian nobles and Sclavonian peasants ; Wallachian, Serb, Croation, etc., nobles ; and Wallachian, Serb, Croatian peasants. The Magyar nobles constitute little more than half the nobility of the Hungarian kingdom, the other nobles being Sclavonians, Wallacks, Germans, Slovacks, etc. There are many Magyar peasants belonging to Sclavonian, etc., nobles. The whole number of noblemen in Hungary is, probably, 600,000. There were, and are, whole districts in Hungary where the Magyars own no land, and where not one Magyar noble can be found. There is no difference between the Magyar and Sclavonian peasants or serfs, except this, that the Magyars, perhaps, are more industrious and intel- ligent. It is equally untrue, that the Sclavonians — by which (name) Professor Brownson designates all races not Magyar — had but "two or three delegates in the Hungarian Diet," as Professor Bi'ownson asserts. The counties of Trentschin Arva, Turocz, Liptau, Sarosch, and Sohl, for instance, are almost purely Sclavonian counties, each returning two Scla-vonian delegates, elected by Sclavonian nobles or freemen, to the Hungarian Diet. The county of Marmarosch is Wallachian, sending Wallachian deputies, elected by Wallachian nobles. The counties Weroeczi, Syrmia, and Poszega, are Croatian counties, sending Croats, elected by Croatian nobles, as delegates to the Hungarian Diet. The counties of Temoes, Tarontal, and Craszo, are Serb, Wallachian, and Armenian counties, sending Serb, Wal- lachian, and Armenian delegates, elected by Serb, Wallachian, and Armenian nobles. In the Diet of 1839, at least ten different races were represented. Beside, there are several other counties in which Magyars and other races reside promiscuously, and elect deputies of various races. More astounding than all this, however, is Professor Brownson's allegation, "that Austria has exerted herself to obtain some rights for those vassals— the Sclavonic serfs — that were held in subjection STALLO'S LECTURE. 19 by the ruling caste ; that Austria sought to lighten the burdens that the Magyars had imposed on the Sclavonians ; that Austria had exerted an arbitrary power only in enforcing on Hungary the prin- ciples which recognized those poor serfs as men;" and that, "if the Hungarian patriots, toward the conclusion, proclaimed other doc- trines, and promised a liberation of the peasantry, it was not in the origin contemplated, and it was the last desperate measure resorted to in sustaining a cause which it was felt could not be sustained without it!" These are, indeed, revelations ! Austria — perfidious, reactionary Austria — in the van of a liberal movement for the emancipation of "serfs ! " There is no doubt, that, in former times, some of the Austrian "tartufies," whose maxim always was ^'divide et impera,^' seemingly sided with the peasantry, and held out to them golden prospects of "emancipation," in order to weaken the power and influence of the Hungarian nobles and magnates, who were disaffected to the House of Hapsburg, owing to the repeated attempts of these "tartuffes" to destroy the Hungarian nationality, and incorporate Hungary with the other dominions. When, however, the light of those ideas which are embodied in our own glorious institutions, the vital ideas of the nineteenth century, began to loom up even on the Austrian horizon, then the real Austrian policy did not fail to disclose itself; and if any measures of reform were proposed by the Hapsburg rulers, it was because the king disputed the right to initiate measures with the House of Deputies, and knew that these measures would be intro- duced at all events. It is the old plea, "I am very happy, sir, that you kicked me down stairs; I was just going that way myself." And when the Hungarian Diet set about the work of progress, reform, and "emancipation," in good earnest, it was the Austrian IMvty, represented by officials, etc., in the House of Magnates, and the Hapsburg Sovereign, armed with the weapon of "absolute veto," who held back and resisted. Ever since the year 1832, from the beginning of that memorable session of the Hungarian Diet, whose avowed purpose was the revision of the old constitution, there was an organized liberal and patriotic party of Hungarians, whose pro- gramme — afterward advocated by Kossuth, in his Pesthi Hirlap — embraced the following articles: "1. All the peasants of the Kingdom, of whatever religion or race, 20 STALLO'S LECTURE. shall be at once freed from all urbarial dues and obligations to the landholders, the landlords to be indemnified by the State. "2. All the inhabitants of the country, whether noble or peasant, without distinction as to religion or race, shall be declared equal before the law. "3. Every inhabitant whose property amounts to about thirty pounds, or who has an income of about ten pounds, [property qual- ification not entirely unknown to us in the United States], shall have the rio'ht of suffraoe. O iD "4. Every inhabitant having this elective franchise, shall bear his equal proportion of the expenses of the government, by paying taxes according to the value of his income. "The Hungarian Diet, and not the Hungarian Chancery at Vienna, shall decide on the employment of the public revenue. "6. The revenue and other national affairs, shall be intrusted to a cabinet of Hungarian ministers, who shall be responsible to Hun- gary and not to Austria. "7. The right of the heirs of nobles to recover property once sold by their ancestors [aviticitas — the Hungarian law of entail] shall be abolished." In the Hungarian Diet of 1847-48, which closed its labors in April, 1848, these different measures were almost all enacted in the form of law. To quote Blackwood's Magazine, vol. Isv, p. 629, which will not be accused of undue partiality to the liberals : "By unanimous votes of both houses, the Diet not only estab- lished perfect equality of civil rights and public burdens among all classes, denominations, and races in Hungary and its provinces, and perfect toleration for every form of religious worship, but with a gen- erosity, perhaps, unparalleled in the history of nations, and which must extort the admiration even of those who viay question the zvisdom of the measure, the nobles of Hungary abolished their own right to exact either labor or produce in return for the lands held by urbarial tenure, and thus transferred to the peasants the absolute ownership, free and forever, of nearly half the cultivated land in the Kingdom, reserving to the original proprietors of the soil such compensation as the government might award from the public funds of Hungary. More than five hundred thousand peasant families were thus invested with the absolute ownership of from thirty to sixty acres of land each, or about twenty millions of acres amongst them. The elective franchise was extended to every man possessed of capital or property STALLO'S LECTURE. 21 of the value of thirty pounds, or an annual income of ten pounds ; to every man who received a diploma from a university, and to every artisan who employed an apprentice. With the concurrences of both countries, Hungary and Transylvania were united, and their Diets, hitherto separate, were incorporated." To these reforms, enumerated by the writer in Blackwood's Maga- zine, might be added the abolition of the "ninth," the equalization of taxes, the emancipation of the Jews, etc. These enactments were raised to the authority of law by the royal signature of Ferdinand V, on the 11th day of April, A. D., 1848. These were the words of Ferdinand on the occasion: "Having graciously listened to, and graciously granted the prayers of, our beloved and faithful dignitaries of the Church and of the State, magnates and nobles of Hungary and its dependencies, we ordain that the before-mentioned laws be registered in these presents, word for word ; and as we consider these laws and their entire contents, both separately and collectively, fitting and suitable, we give them our consent and approbation. In exercise of our royal will, we have accepted, adopted, approved and sanctioned them, assuring, at the same time, our faithful states that we will respect the said laws and cause them to be respected by our faithful subjects." After Ferdinand had signed these words by his own hand, they were countersigned by Batthyany, the Hungarian Prime Minis- ter just aiypointed by Ferdinand himself, and thus the enactments above referred to became the law of the land. The old Austrian Ministry had nothing whatever to do with it, because, as I have shown, Hungary was independent. It will be recollected that all this took place before, and on the 11th of April, 1848, long before any war or revolution broke out in Hungary; that all these liberal provisions relating to the "emanci- pation of serfs" had been advocated by Kossuth and the Hungarian patriot party many years before. It is also well known that the ex- istence of the Pesti Hirlap, edited by Kossuth, the organ of the principles of progress and emancipation, w^as not due to Austrian encouragement, and that if the Austrian censorship could have done its work effectually enough, all these ideas of emancipation would have been "nipped in the bud." The Blue Book of the British Parliament, entitled "Correspond- ence relative to the affairs of Hungary, 1847-1849, Harrison arent sanction of the Diet was requisite, in order to prevent the open resistance of the people. 1\\\i% Leojyold I, in 1683, attempted to abolish the whole Hungarian Constitution; nominated Caspar Ampringen civil and military governor of Hungary, instituted courts of martial law and inquisition, devastated the country, massa- cred the "heretics," and only when in 1686, by the vigorous resist- ance of the Hungarians, he had been compelled to abandon his schemes and (to cite but one instance) to abolish that frightful inquis- itorial establishment at Eperies under General Caraffa, which is known in history as the ^'laniena Hperjessiensis," he convoked a Diet, in 1687, in order to effect with a show of legality what he had not been able to carry by main force — to make the Hungarian Crown hereditary in his house, and to abolish the right of armed resistance claimed by virtue of the Bulla Aurea above alluded to. The estab- lishment of the Hungarian Chancery at the Court of Vienna, the introduction of the standing army system by Charles III (VI) in 1711, the so called "provisional" appointments made to fill muni- STALLO'S LECTURE. 25 cipal offices, which were, by the Constitution, elective, under Francis I, the estabhshment of the censorship, etc., all were violent infrac- tions of the Hungarian Constitution. To religious persecution I have already alluded. For a series of years two objects, beside the general one of centralization, were kept steadily in view by Austria — to Germanize Hungary, (Maria Theresa, Joseph II, and the subsequent monarchs), and to render it Catholic. The peace of JSTickolsburg (1622), the peace of Lipz (under Ferdinand III), the peace of Vienna (1606, under Rudolph), etc. — in all of which religious liberty is stipulated, and all of which were concluded to end "revolutions," in which the noble Hungarians sought to maintain their dearest right, the freedom of conscience — sufficiently attest the frequency of the inroads made by the Austrian Government on the religious freedom of Hungary. A pithy edict of Louis II, in 1622, who succeeded Rudolph after his abdication in Hungary, against the Lutherans, was in these words: ^' Luther ani comburantur!'' — "Let the Lutherans be burned!''' I turn from this disgusting subject to one, perhaps, less revolting, but not less teeming with injustice. For many years — I might say centuries — the settled policy of the Austrian Government has been to cramp the industrial energies and to stifle the natural resources of Hungary. No railroad was allowed to be built, scarce a road to be made, or a bridge to be constructed. In 1844 the Hungarian Diet passed a law providing for the construction of a railroad from Pesth to Fiume, on the Adriatic; and — in order that Professor Brownson may not be induced to think it was symjoathy for the 'poor "serf" which actuated the Austrian Government — the nobles them- selves, who at that time were still exempt from taxation, guaranteed the expenses, in other words, offered to build it at their own expense, so that neither the Austrian Government nor the peasant would be wronged. This law was vetoed by Ferdinand V ! I have shown that the king had no power directly to levy taxes. But the limits of the constitution proved very insufficient barriers against Austrian avarice. What could not be done directly yfa?, done indirectly. The mineral v/ealth of Hungary is great; it has exten- sive forests ; its climate is genial, and favorable to the culture of wine. Forges and factories of hardware, cutlery, etc., began to rear themselves at the foot of the Carpathians. The joiners, furni- ture makers, and other artisans, were busily at work. Wines were plenty on the borders of the Danube, the Theiss, and other Hunga- 26 STALLO'S LECTURE. rian rivers. To annihilate all these industrial operations, and to stop all the sources of national wealth, the Austrian Government imposed the most enormous duties on all articles of exportation : sixty per cent, on joiners' work, sixty or a hundred per cent, on cutlery, hard- ware, etc., amounting really to an absolute prohibition; and the peasants of Gallicia, who almost witnessed the manufacture of supe- rior scythes, etc., at Gomar, in Hungary, only a few miles distant from the Gallician border, were compelled to import their scythes from Styria, an Austrian province, at a distance of more than the whole breadth of the Hungarian kingdom. On wine, too, pro- hibitory duties — not ad valorem, but specific — were imposed, so that only the most costly article (tokay, etc.) could be exported. While thus on the one hand all the internal industry of Hungary was repressed, heavy import duties on most articles of English, Swiss, German, etc., manufacture, threw the Hungarians on the resources of the Austrian provinces. The organization of the "pro- tection society," (similar to the patriotic association formed at the dawfi of our American Revolution), whose members pledged them- selves to consume none but home articles, and of which Kossuth was the soul, although Batthyanyi stood ostensibly at its head, was one of the measures of self-defense resorted to by the Hungarians against this system of oppression and tyranny. A parallel between the Hungarian and American war of inde- pendence would exhibit manj^ curious analogies, which may go far to account for those warm sympathies of the generous Americans which Professor Brownson undertakes to abate. I will refer to but one item as additional proof of Austrian atrocity, in which this analogy borders upon identity. The last subject of complaint against the British King mentioned I i m the Declaration of Independence, is this: i ; "He [the King of Great Britain] has excited domestic insurrec- i i tions amonofst us, and has endeavored to brino- on the inhabitants of i ! our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, Avhose known rule of j j warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and \ I conditions." ■ j | Apply this to Ferdinand of Austria, and insert the word " Cro- i i atian" for "Indian," and this passage becomes an authentic part of j i the late history in Hungary. j j I need not recite the first events of the late Hungarian war. It is i j well known that hostilities were commenced by the Serbs, and by the "] i STALLO'S LECTURE. 27 Croatians under Jellacliicli, who, with his hordes, crossed the Drave, wliile the Hungarians still regarded Ferdinand V as their friend, and were busy in bringing the new laws just signed by Ferdinand V into operation. On the 10th June, 1848, an imperial manifesto, over the signature of Ferdinand V, was issued, in which Ferdinand V denounced Jellachich as a traitor, stripped him of his dignities and offices, and sent the Austrian marshal, Hrabrowsky, to assume the military command in Croatia. About the 19th of June, Jellachich met the emperor at Juspruck ; and although the particulars of that interview are, of course, unknown, certain it is, that Jellachich remained under the ban of treason until the 4th day of September, 1848, when he was openly recognized as an imperial commander, and publicly restored to his dignities. Then it appeared that the Austrian Government had secretly instigated him to these very acts for which Ferdinand V publicly branded him as a traitor ! But I forbear. It has become sufficiently apparent, I hope, that Professor Brownson's statements with regard to the justice of the Hungarian cause, and the relation of the Magyars to the other races, are, to say the least of them, very extraordinary; and that if ever there was a just cause under heaven, it was the cause of the Hungarians. A word yet about the language of the Magyars. It has been said that the Magyars oppressed the Sclavonians in attempting to force upon them their language, which they made the official lan- guage of the Diet. It is true, the Magyar language Avas made the lanouaq-e of the Diet, for the same reason that Eno-lish is the lansfuao-e used in the councils of our nation, notwithstanding the five millions of Germans, the hosts of Frenchmen, Spaniards, etc., in this country : because the Magyar language is spoken by more than twice as many persons as speak any other dialect in Hungary. But the Croatians did not contend for the use of their own language, but that of the Latin ; and it is easily seen that this would have made the new electoral law, to a certain extent, a nullity. It would have been a more effectual barrier to the real publicity of the proceedings among the newly-emancipated peasantry, than even the Austrian censorship. It is not at all difficult to understand why the Austrian Government favored the claim of the Croatians. The last proposition of Professor Brownson is : "Russia had the right to intervene, in order to suppress rebellion in the Austrian Empire, because Russia was solicited to this by the Austrian 28 STALLO S LECTURE. Sovereign ; a principle wliicli would apply to the Federal Government of the United States, -which would have the right to call in a friendly foreign power to repress the rebellion of a single state, and also on the ground of self-preserva- tion, inasmuch as her own institutions were endangered by the revolutionary and republican struggles of Hungary." As to the first part of this proposition, I will simply leave Pro- fessor Brownson to the ample refutation contained in his own illus- tration drawn from our country ; not admitting, however, the parallel between the relation of any of our individual states to the Federal Government, and that of Hungary to Austria. The second part of the proposition, relating to the right of self-preservation, I will accept for the sake of argument, on the ground of the merit which it derives from its own absurdity ; for if Russia has the right to march into Hungary and repress republican movements because they endanger her own despotic existence, owing to the contiguity of Hungary to the Prussian provinces, then, unqiiestionably, we Americans have a right to march into Russia and to abolish its Czarocracy, because our own institutions are thereby imminently jeoparded, both on account of territorial contiguity and on account of the rapid and extensive intercourse between Russia and the United States in this age of steamships and telegraphs. I have, ladies and gentlemen, in the preceding investigation, almost wholly divested myself of the character of your cotemporary and countryman. I have ceased to be a citizen of this free republic of the United States in the second half of the nineteenth century, I have been ready to forget for a moment that such men as Rousseau and Fichte, Jefferson and Franklin, lived before me, and that I stand with you, in this green land of liberty, in the broad light of their ideas. I have, for the sake of Professor Brownson, donned the garb of a medieval granny with spectacles and wig. I have held up to you the canons of historical right, and, by the dim light which they afford, tried the young and living case of Hungary. We have seen that Hungary need not fear even this test; that, perhaps, in all his- tory there is not a case where historical riff/it is so invariably on the side of the people and liberty, and historical wron^ on the side of the kniffs and desjyotismf But were it otherwise, it would not affect my sympathies or change my views. The Hungarians would still be right, for the reason that men are free born, and nations have the right to govern themselves. In^OTE. The form and the limits of the preceding lecture have rendered a cita- tion, in loco, of the various authorities from "which the facts are derived, and copious extracts from these authorities, inconvenient, if not wholly imprac- ticable. None of my statements of fact, however, so far as they bear upon questions at issue between Professor Brownson and myself, have been made upon mere partisan authority. Those who desire to verify those statements are referred to the following authorities: " Hungary and Transylvania. By John Paget, Esq. Republication by Lea & Blanchard, Philadelphia. 1850." "Dr. H. Bcrghaus. Geographic u. Staatenkunde. Breslau Grass, Earth & Co., 1843." " Rotteck and Wdckcr. Staats Lexicon, 12 vols. Altona: J. F. Hammerich. 1840." " Adolph StrecJkfuss. Die Staats Umwaelzungen der Jahre 1847 and 1848. Berlin: Albert Sacco. 1849." " Aufzeichnungen eines Honved. Leipzig: Grunow & Co. 1850." " Therese Pulszhj. Aus dera Tagebuche einer ungarischen Dame, etc. Leip- zig: Grunow & Co. 1850." "Francis Pulszky. Die Sprachfrage in Ungarn. Leipzig: Grunow