One little fact I will just mention.  By the last treaty with Denmark, to which you became a party, the crown of that kingdom was so settled that only three lives stand between it and the Czar of Russia.  Three lives! but a fragile barrier, when high political aims are concerned.  It is therefore an allowed fact, that the country which commands entrance to the Baltic, and which, in the hands of an unfriendly power, would effectually exclude your commerce from that sea, may pass into the hands of Russia, whose pretensions in the south of Europe you take so much pains to check.  This your government have done quietly.  How many are there of your people that know and approve it?  I hope you will not be offended, if I say, that I cannot understand how yours can be called in this respect a constitutional country.

* * * * *

II.—­MONARCHY AND REPUBLICANISM.

[From Kossuth’s Speech at Copenhagen House, Nov. 3d, 1851.]

In my opinion, the form of Government may be different in different countries, according to their circumstances, their wishes, their wants.  England loves her Queen, and has full motive to do so.  England feels great, glorious and free, and has full reason to feel so.  But the fact of England being a monarchy cannot be sufficient reason for her to hate and discredit republican forms of government in other countries differing in circumstances, in wishes, and in wants.  On the other side, to the United States of America, which under republican government are likewise great, glorious, and free, their republicanism gives no sufficient reason to hate and discredit monarchical government in England.  It entirely belongs to the right of every nation to dispose of its domestic concerns.  Therefore I claim for my own country also, that England, seeing from our past that our cause is just, should profess the sovereign right of every nation to dispose of itself, and should allow no power whatever to interfere with our domestic matters.  Since I thus regard the internal affairs of every nation to be its own separate concern, I did not think it became me here in England to speak about the future organization of our country.

But my behavior has not been everywhere appreciated as I hoped.  I have met in certain quarters the remark that I “am slippery, and evade the question.”  Now on the point of sincerity I am particularly susceptible.  I have the sentiment of being a straightforward man, and I would not be charged with having stolen into the sympathies of England without displaying my true colours.  Therefore I must clearly state, that in our past struggle it was NOT we who made a revolution.  We began peacefully and legislatively to transform the monarchico-aristocratical constitution of Hungary into a monarchico-democratical constitution.  We preserved our municipal institutions, as our most valuable treasure; but to them, as well as to the legislative power, we gave, as basis, the common liberty