contrary
opinion would be a crime against the nation. Not over a liberated nation
(which, of course, would have the right to choose whom it will), but
over a nation crushed by an usurping power, the claims of Kossuth, as
elected Governor of Hungary, are, I submit, lawful.

Republican principles have not been proclaimed at Kossuth's dictation as
the aim of our national exertions. They were, during our struggle, the
well-ascertained and deep-rooted sentiment of the country, and Kossuth
could only faithfully represent the proclaimed will and feeling of the
nation, by inscribing them on his banner. Immediately after the
declaration of independence, all the manifestations of the national will
were unanimous in the desire for a republic. The ministry, which was
nominated by the Governor as a consequence of that legislative act,
declared in both houses of the Diet, that its efforts would be directed
to the establishment of a republic. Both houses joined in this
declaration, and in the government no opposition whatever was manifested
against it. One of the first acts of the new government was to remove
the crown from all national scutcheons, and from the great seal of
Hungary. The press in all its shades developed republican principles.
The new semi-official paper bore the name of _The Republic_. It is
true that the government was only provisional, for the war continued,
and the definite decision of this question depended on unforeseen
circumstances. We should have preferred almost any settlement to the
necessity of a subjection to the Austrian dynasty; and at the price of
emancipation from that detested power, the nation would even have been
prepared, for the sake of aid, to choose a king from another race; but
certainly if it had been the unaided victor in the struggle, never.
Monarchical government would have been for us the resort of expediency.
The government of our wishes and principles was "The Republic."

I do not feel at all convinced, as the noble count asserts, that the
institutions and habits of Hungary are incompatible with a democratic
republic. I find, on the contrary, traits in them which lead me to an
opposite conclusion. The aggregate character of the numerous nobility
which resigned its privileges in the Diet of 1847-48 of its own accord,
and which was in its nature more a democratic than an aristocratic body,
because neither territorial wealth nor rank interfered with or disturbed
the equality of its right