Third, though his theme had many aspects, and these varying aspects Kossuth presented with such skill as to command the attention of his hearers, yet his theme was always the same,--the wrongs of Hungary.
On the twentieth, the twenty-fourth, and the twenty-fifth days of May, 1859, Kossuth delivered speeches in London, Manchester, and Bradford, England. The Lord Mayor presided at the meeting in London, and the meetings one and all were designed to aid the Liberal Party in the then pending general election. Kossuth"s visit to England and the purpose of the visit were due to an arrangement with the Emperor Napoleon, from which Kossuth was led to expect the liberation of Hungary from the grasp of Austria as one of the essential purposes of the war in which France and Austria were engaged. As the result of an interview with the Emperor on the night of the 5th of May, Kossuth visited England in aid of the Liberal Party, and in the belief that the accession of that party to power would secure the neutrality of that country. Hence the wisdom and the duty of neutrality were the topics to which Kossuth devoted himself during his short stay in England. The Liberal Party triumphed, but the triumph was brief, and the disposition of the new ministry was not tested.
Kossuth"s speeches of 1859 at the London Tavern, at a meeting presided over by the Lord Mayor, and at Manchester and at Bradford, present him at his best. He had received a pledge from Napoleon that if he could secure the neutrality of England, and would organize a Hungarian legion for service in the war with Austria, the liberation of Hungary should be regarded as a necessary condition of peace. Such, at least, was the interpretation which Kossuth put upon these words of the Emperor, spoken at the midnight meeting of May 5, 1859: "We beg you to proceed forthwith with your scheme; and be convinced that in securing the neutrality of England you will have removed the greatest obstacle that stands in the way of the realization of your patriotic hopes."
In a preliminary conversation with Prince Napoleon, held at the instance of the Emperor, Kossuth had stipulated that the Emperor should publish a proclamation to the Hungarian nation, announcing his confederation with the Hungarians as their friend and ally, and for the purpose of carrying into effect the Declaration of Independence of 1849. The obligations a.s.sumed by Kossuth were faithfully performed.
General Klapka organized a legion in Italy of four thousand Hungarians.
The overthrow of the Tory Party in England, which Kossuth had predicted and promised, was achieved, and thus the neutrality of Great Britain was secured.
Kossuth"s speeches in England were delivered under the influence of the highest incentives by which an orator and patriot could be moved. With the utmost confidence in his ability to perform what he had promised, he had pledged his honor for the neutrality of England. As he then believed, the fate of Hungary was staked upon the fulfilment of that pledge. Hence it came to pa.s.s that his speeches in England in May, 1859, were on a higher plane than the speeches that he delivered in the years 1851 and 1852. At the former period he had no hope of immediate relief for Hungary; in 1859 he imagined that the day of the deliverance of his country was at hand, and that the neutrality of England was a prerequisite, or at least a coincident condition.
It is not too much to say that the following extract from his speech in the London Tavern justifies every claim that has been made in behalf of Kossuth as a patriot and an orator:
"The history of Italy during the last forty years is nothing but a record of groans, of evergrowing hatred and discontent, of ever- recurring commotions, conspiracies, revolts and revolutions, of scaffolds soaked in the blood of patriots, of the horrors of Spielberg and Mantua, and of the chafing anger with which the words, "Out with the Austrians," tremble on the lips of every Italian. These forty years are recorded in history as a standing protest against those impious treaties. The robbed have all the time loudly protested, by words, deeds, sufferings, and sacrifice of their lives, against the compact of the robbers. Yet, forsooth, we are still told that the treaties of 1815 are inviolable. Why, I have heard it reported that England rang with a merry peal when the stern inward judge, conscience, led the hand of Castlereagh to suicide; and shall we, in 1859, be offered the sight of England plunging into the incalculable calamities of a great war for no better purpose than to uphold the accursed work of the Castlereaghs, and from no better motive than to keep the House of Austria safe?
"Inviolable treaties, indeed. Why, my lord, the forty-four years that have since pa.s.sed have riddled those treaties like a sieve. The Bourbons, whom they restored to the throne of France, have vanished, and the Bonapartes, whom they proscribed, occupy the place of the Bourbons on the throne of France. And how many changes have not been made in the state of Europe, in spite of those "inviolable treaties"?
Two of these changes--the transformation of Switzerland from a confederation of states into a confederated state, and the independence of Belgium--have been accomplished to the profit of liberty. But for the rest, the distinctive features through which those treaties have pa.s.sed is this, that every poor plant of freedom which they had spared has been uprooted by the unsparing hand of despotism. From the republic of Cracow, poor remnant of Poland, swallowed by Austria, down to the freedom of the press guaranteed to Germany, but reduced to such a condition that, in the native land of Guttenberg, not one square yard of soil is left to set a free press upon, everything that was not evil in those inviolable treaties has been trampled down, to the profit of despotism, of concordats, of Jesuits, and of benighting darkness. And all these violations of the inviolable treaties were accomplished without England"s once shaking her mighty trident to forbid them. And shall it be recorded in history that when the question is how to drive Austria from Italy, when the natural logic of this undertaking might present my own native country with a chance for that deliverance to which England bade G.o.d-speed with a mighty outcry of sympathy rolling like thunder from John O"Groat"s to Land"s End,--that deliverance for which prayers have ascended, and are ascending still, to the Father of mankind from millions of British hearts,--shall it be recorded in history that at such a time, that under such circ.u.mstances, England plunged into the horrors and calamities of war, nay, that she took upon herself to make this war prolonged and universal, for the mere purpose of upholding the inviolability of those rotten treaties in favor of Austria, good for nothing on earth except to spread darkness and to perpetuate servitude?
"There you have that Austria in Piedmont carrying on war in a manner that recalls to memory the horrors of the long gone-by ages of barbarism. You may read in the account furnished to the daily papers, by their special correspondents, that the rigorously disciplined soldiers of Austria were allowed to act the part of robbers let loose upon an unoffending population, to offer violence to unprotected families, to outrage daughters in the presence of their parents, and to revel in such other savage crimes as the blood of civilized men curdles at hearing and the tongue falters in relating. Such she was always--always. These horrors but faintly reflect what Hungary had to suffer from her in our late war. And shall it be said that England, the home of gentlemen, sent her brave sons to shed their blood and to stain their honor in fighting side by side with such a _soldatesca_ for those highwayman compacts of 1815 to the profit of that Austria?"
With the treaty of Villafranca, July 11, 1859, Kossuth abandoned all hope of the independence of Hungary. There can be no doubt that, from the first, Napoleon intended to abandon Kossuth and his cause when he had made use of his influence in England and in Italy for his own purposes. The armistice and the peace with Austria were inaugurated by Napoleon; and when, at the last moment, Emperor Francis Joseph raised difficulties upon some points in the treaty, Prince Napoleon, who was a party to the conference, threatened him with a revolution in Italy and in Hungary. As to Kossuth, his only solace was in the reflection that he had stayed the tendency to revolution on the soil of Hungary, and thus his countrymen had been saved from new calamities.
Thenceforward Kossuth had before him only a life of exile; but he reserved for his children the right, and he set before them the duty, of returning to their native land.
I am giving large s.p.a.ce to the visit of Kossuth in the belief that the country is moving away from the doctrines of self-government as a common right of mankind, as they were taught by him and as they were accepted generally until we approached the end of the nineteenth century.
In Faneuil Hall Kossuth made these striking remarks. Addressing himself to America, he said: "You have prodigiously grown by your freedom of seventy-five years; but what are seventy-five years to take for a charter of immortality! No, no, my humble tongue tells the record of eternal truth. A privilege never can be lasting. Liberty restricted to one nation never can be sure. You may say "we are the prophets of G.o.d," but you shall not say, "G.o.d is only our G.o.d." The Jews have said so and the pride of Jerusalem lies in the dust! Our Saviour taught all humanity to say _"Our Father in Heaven,"_ and his Jerusalem is "lasting to the end of days.""
His style was that of a scholar who had mastered the English language by the aid of books. His idiomatic expressions were few. In one of his speeches when urging his audience to demand active intervention in behalf of Hungary he attempted to use the phrase, "You should take time by the forelock." At the last word he came to a dead pause and subst.i.tuted a twist of his own forelock with his right hand. He thus commanded the hearty cheers of his hearers. It is probable that the expedient was forced upon Kossuth, but the art of a skilled orator might have suggested such a device.
Kossuth was small in stature, not more than five feet seven inches in height, and weighing not more than one hundred and forty pounds. His eyes and hair were black, his complexion dark, giving the impression that he did not belong to the Caucasian race. His career was a meteoric display in political oratory, such as the world does not often witness. His integrity cannot be questioned, and for more than a third of a century he submitted to a life of exile rather than accept a home under a government which he thought was a usurpation. He gave to the country new ideas, and his name and fame will be traditional for a long period of time.
When Kossuth was in America he looked upon General Gorgey as a traitor and he was so regarded by the friends of Hungary generally. In the year 1885, however, a testimonial was presented to General Gorgey by about thirty of the survivors of the contest of 1848, in which they exonerated him from that charge. General Klapka was among the signers, but the name of Kossuth did not appear upon the memorial.
At the end of the nineteenth century neither Ma.s.sachusetts nor any other State could or would accord to an exile for liberty the reception that was given to Kossuth in 1852.
The expenses of his reception in Ma.s.sachusetts, and of the entertainment of his suite were paid by an appropriation from the public treasury. He was given a public reception by the Governor of the State, and a like reception was given to him by each House of the Legislature in suspended session.
He was further honored by a review on Boston Common of a fourth part of the organized militia of the commonwealth. The a.s.semblages of citizens were as large in proportion to the population of the State as were ever gathered upon any other occasion.
Kossuth visited fifteen of the princ.i.p.al cities and towns of the State and in each of them he delivered one address or more. His theme was always the same, but his variety of argument and ill.u.s.tration seemed inexhaustible. At Cambridge he urged the students to so use their powers as to "promote their country"s welfare and the rights of humanity."
The Legislature adopted a series of resolutions of sympathy and in condemnation of Austria and Russia. The opening resolution was in these words: "Resolved, That every nation has the right to adopt such form of government as may seem to it best calculated to advance those ends for which all governments are in theory established." Can this resolution command an endors.e.m.e.nt at the beginning of the twentieth century?
The States of Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont adopted resolutions of sympathy with Hungary and of arraignment of Austria and Russia.
[* This chapter was published substantially as it appears here in the _New England Magazine._ Copyright, 1903, by Warren F. Kellogg.]
XIX THE COALITION AND THE STATE CONSt.i.tUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1853
The controversy over slavery, which wrought a division in the Whig and Democratic parties as early as the year 1848, led to a reorganization of parties in 1849, under the names of Whig, Democratic, and Free-soil parties, respectively. Of these the Whig Party was the largest, but from 1849 to 1853 it was not able to command a majority vote in the State, and at that time a majority vote was required in all elections.
There was a substantial agreement between the Democratic and Free-soil parties upon the leading questions of State politics. Of these questions a secret ballot law and the division of counties for the election of senators, and the division of cities for the election of representatives, were the chief. Under the law then existing the county of Middles.e.x, for example, elected six senators, and each year all were of the same party. Boston was a Whig city, and each year it chose forty-six members of the House on one ballot, and always of the Whig Party. What is now the system of elections was demanded by the Democratic and Free-soil parties. The change was resisted by the Whig Party. In 1849 I was nominated by the Democratic Party for the office of Governor, and a resolution was adopted denouncing the system of slavery. In that year coalitions were formed in counties and in cities and towns between Democrats and Free-soilers, which demonstrated the possibility of taking the State out of the hands of the Whig Party, if the coalitions could be made universal. This was accomplished in 1850, and in 1851 I became Governor by the vote of the Legislature, and Mr. Sumner was elected to the United States Senate.
It was the necessity of the situation that the two offices should be filled, and the necessity was not less mandatory that one of the places should be filled by a Democrat, and the other by a member of the Free-soil Party. There were expectations and conjectures, no doubt, but until the Legislature a.s.sembled in 1851 no one knew what the arrangement would be. I am sure that I had no a.s.surance that either place would be a.s.signed to me. The leaders of the Free-soil Party were resolute in demanding the place in the Senate, so that their views on the subject of slavery might be there set forth, and there were many Democrats who preferred the control of the State.
The coalition had control of the State for the political years of 1851 and 1852. An act was pa.s.sed which provided for a secret ballot, and by another act the question of a Const.i.tutional Convention was submitted to the voters of the State. In March, 1853, an election was held for the choice of delegates. A majority of the delegates elected were members of the Democratic and Free-soil parties.
Although I had made a resolution to retire from active partic.i.p.ation in politics at the end of my term as Governor, I was so much committed to the objects of the Convention, and so much interested in its success, that I could not avoid giving my time to the canva.s.s for the election of members. It happened, however, that I gave no attention to my own town, and the Whig candidate, John G. Park, was elected. My defeat was due to my action upon the liquor bill, which was enacted at the session of 1852. The Legislature pa.s.sed a prohibitory law, subject to its ratification by the people by the use of the open ballot. The question of the secret ballot was one of the prominent questions between the parties, and at the session of 1851 the coalition had pa.s.sed an act requiring the votes to be deposited in envelopes of uniform character and to be furnished by the State. I vetoed the bill upon the ground that if the bill was to be submitted to the people the secret ballot should be used. Thereupon the Legislature pa.s.sed a similar bill without a reference to the people. The bill was pa.s.sed by the help of the Whig members from Boston, who were in fact opposed to the measure, and with the design of placing me in an unpleasant position. Contrary to their expectation, I signed the bill. As a temperance man, I could not have done otherwise, although I thought it proper to submit the question to the people by the use of the secret ballot.
Many members of the Democratic Party in Groton were users of liquor, and they voted for my opponent in the contest for a delegate to the Convention. Mr. Park was a Whig, but moderate in his feelings, an upright man, and a fair representative of the Conservative feeling of the time.
It was one of the peculiarities of the call for the Convention, that each const.i.tuency could elect a candidate from any part of the State.
That feature added immensely to the ability of the Convention. Hon.
Henry Wilson was the candidate of the coalition in the town of Natick, but as he was not confident of an election he was a candidate also in the town of Berlin. He was elected in both towns. Mr. Sumner was elected in Marshfield, the home of Mr. Webster, Mr. Burlingame was elected for Northboro, Mr. Hallett for Wilbraham, Mr. R. H. Dana, Jr., for Manchester, and others, not less than ten in all, were elected by towns in which they did not live. This circ.u.mstance gave occasion for a turn upon words that attracted much attention at the time. It came to be known that Mr. Burlingame had never been in Northboro. Upon some question, the nature of which I do not recall, Mr. Burlingame made an attack upon the rich men of Boston, and intimated that their speedy transfer to the Mount Auburn Cemetery would not be a public misfortune.
Mr. Geo. S. Hillard, in reply, referred to Mr. Burlingame as the "member who represented a town he had not seen, and misrepresented one that he had seen." Unfortunately for Mr. Hillard he lost the value of his sharp rejoinder by a statement in the same speech. Referring to Boston, where he was a practising lawyer, he said that he "would not strike the hand that fed him."
Upon the meeting of the Convention in May, Mr. Wilson resigned his seat for Berlin, and I was unanimously elected in his place. It was my fortune also to represent a town that I had not seen.
I may mention the fact that my father received a unanimous vote for the Convention in Lunenburg, the town of his residence. There were two other cases of the election of father and son as members of the Convention. Marcus Morton and Marcus Morton, Jr.; Samuel French and Rodney French.
The two great subjects of debate and of anxious thought in the Convention were the representative system and the tenure of the judicial office. It was my earnest purpose to preserve town representation and in the debate I made two elaborate speeches. It was then and upon that subject that I encountered Mr. Choate for the first time. He was a supporter, and, of course, the leading advocate of the district system. The Convention adhered to town representation in a modified form. The proposition was defeated by the vote of Boston, which gave a majority against the new Const.i.tution of about one thousand in excess of the negative majority of the entire State.
More serious difficulties, even, were encountered in the attempt to change the tenure of judges. No inconsiderable portion of the Convention favored an elective judiciary. To that project I was opposed. By the co-operation of a number of the members of the coalition party with the Whigs the proposition was defeated. Next, a proposition was submitted by Mr. Knowlton of Worcester, to continue the appointment in the Executive Department, limiting the tenure to seven years. After an amendment had been agreed to extending the term to ten years, the proposition was adopted. With some misgivings I a.s.sented to the compromise. The attempt to change the tenure of the judges was a grave mistake, and it was the efficient cause of the defeat of the work of the Convention. Beyond this error, the defeat of the new Const.i.tution was made certain by the course of Bishop Fitzpatrick of the Catholic Church. For many years the Irish population of Boston had acted with the Democratic Party. Upon the question of calling a Convention the adverse majority in Suffolk had been 2,800 only, but upon the question of ratifying the work of the Convention the adverse majority was nearly six thousand. To this result the influence of Bishop Fitzpatrick had contributed essentially.
His reason he did not disguise. Portions of Boston were under the control of the Irish. A division of the city would open to them seats in the House and the Senate. The Bishop deprecated their entrance into active, personal politics. Hence he used his influence against the new Const.i.tution. Such was his frank statement when the contest was over.
About the twentieth of June, when I had been a member of the Convention for twenty days only, General Banks said to me that it was the wish of our friends that I should move for a committee to prepare the Const.i.tution for submission to the people. At that time the thought of such a movement had not occurred to me. The committee was appointed upon my motion, and, according to usage, I was placed at the head of it, and from that time I had in my own hands, very largely, the direction of the business of the Convention. As is usual, the work of the committee fell upon a few members. In this case the working members were Richard H. Dana, Jr., and myself. Marcus Morton, Jr., a volunteer, was a valuable aid. After considerable experience in other places I can say that the preparation of the new Const.i.tution was the most exacting labor of my life. The committee were to deal with the Const.i.tution of 1780, with the thirteen amendments that had been adopted previous to 1853, and with thirty-five changes in the Const.i.tution that had been agreed to by the Convention. The practical problem was this:--
(1) To eliminate from the Const.i.tution of 1780 all that had been annulled by the thirteen amendments.
(2) To eliminate from the Const.i.tution of 1780, and from each of the thirteen amendments, all the provisions that would be annulled by the adoption of the thirty-five changes that had been agreed to by the Convention.
(3) To furnish Const.i.tutional language for the new features that were to be incorporated in the Const.i.tution.
(4) To arrange the matter of the new Const.i.tution, and to reproduce the instrument, divided upon topics and into chapters and articles.
All the work under the first two heads was done by myself. The language was so much the subject of criticism and of rewriting that the responsibility for item three cannot be put upon any one. The same may be said of the work under item four; although that work was unimportant comparatively. The copy of the Const.i.tution which was used by me in making the eliminations is still in my possession.
It is to be observed that the Convention did not furnish language in which the amendments that had been agreed to were to be expressed in the Const.i.tution.
The resolutions, as adopted, were in the form following:
"Resolved, That it is expedient so to alter and amend the Const.i.tution as to provide for a periodical division of the Commonwealth into equal districts on the basis of population." This form was observed in all the results reached by the Convention. The Convention had named the first day of August as the day of adjournment, and the serious work of preparing the Const.i.tution was entered upon about the 15th day of July.
The committee as a body, consisting of thirteen members, took no part in the preparation of the Const.i.tution. It sanctioned the work as it had been done by Mr. Dana, Mr. Morton, and myself.
As my constant presence in the Convention was required, the work imposed upon me as chairman of the committee was performed in the mornings, in the evenings, and during the recesses. Thus the days from the early morning until ten o"clock at night were given to labor and without thought of eating or drinking. At ten o"clock I ate a hearty supper and then retired, always getting a sound sleep, whatever might have been the work of the day preceding.
In the last fifteen days of the session the _projet_ of the Const.i.tution was printed for proof-reading and for corrections twenty- four times. The record shows that there were but few changes made by the Convention, and those were formal and unimportant; and never in the canva.s.s that followed was the suggestion made that the proposed Const.i.tution failed to represent the mind and purpose of the Convention.
The Address to the People of the State was written by me on the last day of the Convention, August 1, 1853, and, as I now recall the events of that day, it was not submitted to the committee, although the members, by individual action, authorized me to make the report. On the same day and upon the motion of Mr. Frank W. Bird, of Walpole, the Convention adopted the following order:--