A-9^a\-\ 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 B 2 fiM5 U23 
 
i^:\ ^'J: 
 
 
 \^ . ' ''\ 
 
 ir-S,TT 
 
^ 
 
WHO IS 
 
 THE 
 
 'KING OF HUNGARY" 
 
 THAT IS NOW 
 
 A SUITOR 
 
 IN THE 
 
 ENGLISH COURT OF CHANCERY? 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 THE RIGHT HON. LORD J. RUSSELL, M.P., 
 
 HER majesty's PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS. 
 
 TOULMIN SMITH, 
 
 1 * 
 
 OF LINCOLN'S INN, ESQUIEE, BAEBISTEE-AT-LAW. 
 
 LONDON: 
 W. JEFFS, 15, BURLINGTON ARCADE, 
 
 AND 69, KING'S ROAD, BRIGHTON, 
 
 jForeign Bookseller to tfje Eogal JFamilg* 
 1861. 
 
LOAN STACK 
 
7 ~i I) 
 
 WHO IS THE "KING OF HUNGARY"? 
 
 A LETTER TO LORD JOHN RUSSELL 
 
 My Lord, — 
 
 It is remarkable that twice, within the last three months, 
 judgments have been given, in English Courts of Justice, in 
 matters touching the dearest rights of men and of nations ; 
 and that, in each case, the judgment has been given in defer- 
 ence to foreign demands, and adversely to the liberties of men 
 and to the freedom of nations. 
 
 So soon as the former of these cases, commonly called the 
 " Canada Extradition Case," became known in England, and 
 while it was as yet dogmatically assumed that the judgment 
 could not be gainsaid, I undertook to demonstrate that it was 
 against the Law of England. I did this, by showing that the 
 real points involved in tlie case had not been so much as 
 touched by the Court, while the judgment given was in direct 
 contravention of fundamental Principles that have always 
 been recognized as of paramount authority in English Law. 
 The correctness of this argument has, since, been admitted by 
 those who did not venture, before, to doubt that the judgment 
 of the Court must be accepted ; and, what is more important, 
 the result of the argument has been acted on by Her Majesty's 
 Government."^ 
 
 * My argument on the subject (dated 5th January) was published in the 
 Morning Star of Monday, 7th January. On the very day of its own date, the 
 
 470 
 
4 
 
 Within the past week there has been a judgment given, 
 which involves questions of even greater importanee than the 
 Canada Extradition Case. If the judgment given, in the case 
 of the Emperor of Austria against Kossuth, be sound, the 
 crown of Queen Victoria must fall from her head; all the 
 Statutes of the English Parliament for the last 180 years be- 
 come wiped out, without the aid of the Lord Chancellor's 
 " Statute Law Revision Bill ;'' and we must search the earth 
 for the heir-at-law of James II., and, having set him on the 
 throne, bow our heads in humble abasement before him. 
 
 I undertake, my Lord, to demonstrate that there is not, on 
 the face of the Bill filed by the Emperor of Austria in the 
 Court of Chancery, on Wednesday, 27th February last, even 
 the slightest prima facie colour for granting the Order of In- 
 junction that was actually awarded ; but that, on the other 
 hand, the facts alleged in the body of that Bill, and in the 
 single Affidavit by which it was supported, joined with the 
 facts and the principles of Law of which every English Court 
 of Justice is bound to take judicial notice, were such as re- 
 quired the instant dismissal of the Bill by the Court. 
 
 Times (5tli January) had said, that " the majority of the Court will be thought 
 by Lawyers to have put the only possible constriiction upon the Extradition Law 
 as it stands." On Saturday, the 12th, the Examiner discovered that "we have 
 good reason for believing that more than one lawyer of distinction in this 
 country, to whom it had seemed, on first reading Chief Justice Robinson's 
 judgment, that no flaw was to be found in it, have admitted, on mature reflec- 
 tion, that his law is of doubtful correctness." A week later, the Saturday Ee- 
 view found it necessary to admit, that " the growing conviction of English 
 Lawyers " was, that the Court w^as " wrong in Law." Finally, it was candidly 
 admitted by the Times, on 11th February, that " the course of legal opinion 
 has entirely changed ;" and that, " at this moment [that is, exactly five weeks 
 after my argument had been published], Westminster Hall is almost unanimous 
 to the effect that the Court of Queen's Bench in Canada has given a judgment 
 which cannot be sustained before any Court of Appeal." All this is, of course, 
 very satisfactory to me, and well illustrates what I have so often urged, namely, 
 the vast importance and practical value of taking stand upon Principles. The 
 most satisfactory thing, however, has been, that, on the 9th January, the Go- 
 vernment sent out orders to Canada that effectually secured the safety of the 
 man claimed under pretence of the Extradition Treaty. See the Farliamen- 
 tary Kememhrancer of 9th February, 1861, p. 8. 
 
The propriety of addressing this Letter to your Lordship is 
 obvious. When a foreign Emperor comes into an English 
 Court of Justice, to ask for our Law to interfere with some- 
 thing that is alleged to be doing by one who was solemnly de- 
 clared, a few years ago, by the lawfully assembled Diet of a 
 Nation of which that Emperor now calls himself " king," to be 
 the lawful Governor of that Nation, — a solemn declaration that 
 remains yet unrevoked by the only power able to revoke it, — 
 the matter is plainly, in fact, a political one ; and the thin dis- 
 guise of invoking the forms of a Court of Law, — or " Equity" 
 if your Lordship pleases, — must not be let draw men's eyes 
 away from the real objects sought, nor from the real questions 
 that are at stake. 
 
 To be precise and clear, I will remind your Lordship that 
 the title and first paragraph of the Bill that was filed in Chan- 
 cery on 27th February, 1861, are as follow : — 
 
 " Between Francis Joseph, Emperor of 
 Austria and King of Hungary 
 
 and Bohemia Plaintiff, 
 
 William Bay, John Day, Joseph 
 
 Day, and Louis Kossuth . Defendants. 
 
 " To the Right Honourable John Baron Campbell, of St. 
 Andrews in the County of Fife, Lord High Chancellor of Great 
 Britain ; — 
 
 " Complaining, Sheweth unto His Lordship, Francis Joseph, 
 Emperor of Austria, and King of Hungary and Bohemia, the 
 above-named Plaintiff, as follows r — 
 
 " (1.) The Plaintiff is the King of Hungary ; and, as such, 
 in right of His Croivn, has the sole and exclusive privilege of 
 authorizing the issue in Hungary of Notes for payment of 
 money, to be circulated in that Country as money, and also 
 the sole and exclusive privilege of authorizing to be affixed, to 
 any document intended to be published or circulated in Hun- 
 gary, the Royal Arms of that Country." 
 
 The other allegations in the Bill are all repeated in the Affi- 
 davit of " Rudolph Count Apponyi ;" by which alone the Bill 
 
6 
 
 was supported, and upon which alone the Order of Injunction 
 was awarded. That Affidavit is as follows :^ — 
 
 " I am the ambassador to this country of his Imperial Majesty 
 the Emperor of Austria, who is the PlaintiiF in this cause. His 
 Imperial Majesty is also King of Hungary, and, as such, he has, in 
 right of his crown, the sole and exclusive privilege of issuing, and of 
 authorizing the issue, in Hungary, of notes for 'payment of money 
 intended to be circulated in that country as money ; and also the 
 sole and exclusive privilege of authorizing to he affixed, to any docu- 
 ment intended to he published or circulated in Sungary, the JRoyal 
 arms of that country. 
 
 " A very large portion, and, to the best of my belief, nearly the 
 whole, of the present circulation in Hungary, consists of notes of 
 the National Bank of Austria, which are issued under the autho- 
 rity of his Imperial Majesty as Emperor of Austria and King of 
 Hungary; and these notes, UDder the authority of his Imperial 
 Majesty, circulate in Hungary as money, and are for sums of one 
 florin and upwards each. 
 
 " I have been informed, and believe, that the defendants, Wil- 
 liam Day, John Day, and Joseph Day, carry on business in London 
 as lithographers, in partnership, under the firm of Messrs. Day 
 and Sons. 
 
 " I have been informed, and believe, that the said Messrs. Day 
 and Sons have prepared plates for printing or lithographing docu- 
 ments which purport to be notes of the Hungarian nation or state, 
 and are designed to be circulated as money in that country ; and 
 I have been iuformed, and believe, that they have done this under 
 the direction of Louis Kossuth, who is one of the above-mentioned 
 Defendants, and that they, by his direction, are now engaged in 
 printing or lithographing, from the plates so prepared by them, 
 documents which purport to be such notes as aforesaid; and 
 which, for the sake of distinction, I hereafter refer to as spurious 
 notes. 
 
 " On the 26th of the present month of February, I obtained 
 one of the said spurious notes which had been printed by the said 
 Messrs. Day and Sons. The exhibit marked A, produced and 
 shown to me at the time of my swearing this affidavit, is the spu- 
 
 * Some of tlie passages to which it is necessary to call particular attention, 
 are, for the convenience of the reader, here put in italics; 
 
rious note so obtained by me. The body of this document is in 
 the Hungarian language, with which lam well acquainted ; and the 
 arms, of which there is a print at the bottom, are the Eoyal arms 
 of that country. The body of the said note, when translated into 
 English, is as follows : — ' One florin. This monetary note will be 
 received in every Hungarian state and public pay-ofEce as one 
 florin in silver — three zwanzigers being one florin ; and its whole 
 nominal value is guaranteed by the State. In the name of the 
 nation, — Loris Kosstjth.' 
 
 " I believe that a great number of the spurious notes which the 
 said Messrs. Day and Sons are manufacturing, are for one florin 
 each, and that the remainder are for other sums, some larger and 
 some smaller than one florin, and that all these spurious notes are 
 numbered, and that, with the necessary variation of the number 
 and the amount which they purport to represent, [they are] the 
 same as the said exhibit A ; and I have been informed, and be- 
 lieve, that the total nominal amount of the spurious notes which 
 the said Messrs. Day and Sons are manufacturing will be very large, 
 and will exceed 100,000,000 florins. 
 
 " I have been informed, and believe, that the said Messrs. Day 
 and Sons have nearly completed the manufacture of the said spuri- 
 ous notes, and that they now have in their hands a very large 
 number thereof, entirely or nearly completed ; and that they in- 
 tend very shortly, and (as far as I can ascertain) in the course of 
 the present week, to deliver the same to the said Louis Kossuth ; 
 and 1 believe, and, from the information which I, as such ambas- 
 sador as aforesaid, have obtained, I have no doubt, that the said 
 Louis Kossuth intends, as soon as he has received the said spuri- 
 ous notes, without any authority from his Imperial Majesty, to 
 send the same to agents employed by him in Hungary ; and that 
 he intends, by means of his said agents, to sell some of these spu- 
 rious notes in Hungary to persons resident there, for whatever 
 sums he can get for the same, and by this and other means to in- 
 troduce the same into circulation in Hungary ; and that he intends 
 to use the remainder of the said spurious notes in Hungary, among 
 other purposes, in violation of the rights and prerogatives of the 
 Plaintiff as King of that country ; and I believe, and, from the 
 information which I have received as such ambassador as afore- 
 said, I have no doubt, that the said Louis Kossuth intends to use 
 the same, amongst other purposes, to promote revolution and dis- 
 
cord in Hungary. ** I, as ambassador of his Imperial Majesty the 
 Emperor of Austria, know that he has never authorized the manu- 
 facture of the said notes which the said Messrs. Day and Sons are 
 manufacturing, or the use thereon of the Eoyal arms of Hungary, 
 and I believe that the introduction of the said notes into Hungary 
 will create a spurious circulation there, and hy that and other means 
 cause great detriment to the State and to the subjects of his Imperial 
 Majesty. I believe that the members of the firm of Messrs. Day 
 and Sons, before they prepared the plates for the said spurious 
 notes, were aware of the purpose for which the said Louis Kos- 
 suth intended to use the same, and that he was not authorized by 
 his Imperial Majesty to prepare and issue the same, and that the 
 said spurious notes were a violation of the rights of the plaintiff 
 as King of Hungary ; but I believe that they intend to deliver the 
 said spurious notes, when completed, to the said Louis Kossuth. 
 
 " I first received information that Messrs. Day and Sons were 
 engaged in manufacturing the said spurious notes, on the Srd 
 of the present month of February. On receiving the information, 
 I at once applied to her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for 
 Foreign Affairs, and requested that her Majesty's government would 
 interfere and prevent the manufacture of the said spurious notes ; 
 and on the 2Srd of the present month, and not before, I received a 
 reply from the said Secretary of State, to the eifect that her Ma- 
 jesty's government were unable to interfere ; and I thereupon at 
 once communicated with the government at Vienna of his Imperial 
 Majesty the Emperor of Austria ; and on the 2Qth of the present 
 month of February, and not before, received instructions to use 
 the name of his Imperial Majesty in such proceedings as I might 
 think necessary to institute with reference to the said spurious 
 notes." 
 
 Some facts are disclosed, on the face of this extraordinary 
 document, which demand notice before touching on the more 
 important questions that arise. 
 
 In the first place, it does not appear what business "Ru- 
 dolph Count Apponyi^^ had to make any Affidavit in this 
 cause at all. On his own showing, he is out of Court. He 
 tells us that he is ambassador of the Emperor of Austria. But 
 the Plaintiff" in this cause rests his claim solely and exclusively 
 upon the allegation that he is '^ King of Hungary ;^' and "as 
 SUCH " only, he comes into Court. 
 
The Austrian Ambassador, however, further tells us, that 
 he applied to you, my Lord, on the 3rd day of February, upon 
 the subject of the Notes to which the Bill refers ; but that 
 " on the 23rd of the same month, and not before y he received 
 a reply,'' to the efiect that you were "unable to interfere."' 
 Now this lapse of 20 days, is something that has to be ac- 
 counted for by your Lordship to the public opinion of Eng- 
 land. The application ought to have been answered in an 
 hour. There was not the shadow of a pretext for entertain- 
 ing the suggestion of the Austrian Ambassador. But you did 
 entertain it. You sent Sir Richard Mayne himself, to try 
 whether he could not frighten those concerned, by the awful 
 dread inspired by his own terrible presence. It occurred to 
 them, which it seems not to have done to your Lordship, that 
 there is such a thing as Law in England, and that the matter 
 to be considered was, not what the rolling thunders of Sir 
 Richard Mayne's voice might threaten, but whether the Law 
 of England had given Sir Richard Mayne, backed by all the 
 influence of a government anxious to do the behests of Austria, 
 the power to carry those threats into execution. Parliament 
 and the Public are entitled to require, at your Lordship's 
 hands, a complete journal of the transactions of these twenty 
 days, and to know why the attempts that were actually made 
 by the Government of England were abandoned, and what 
 were the several answers, written and verbal, given to " Ru- 
 dolph Count Apponyi " during that time, and what sugges- 
 tions were made to that personage for his future guidance. 
 
 One thing is at present clear. The Emperor of Austria is 
 better served than the Queen of England. It took twenty 
 days for your Lordship to give an answer to a very plain ques- 
 tion. The Austrian Minister, on the other hand, received his 
 instructions " on the 26th of February, and not before ;'' but 
 on the very next day he filed his Bill in Chancery, and backed 
 it up by the long affidavit above quoted. 
 
 When a suitor comes into any English Court, there are 
 three things that he is bound to show on the face of his com- 
 plaint ; first, that he has himself a right to come forward to 
 
10 
 
 complain ; second^ that he has true evidence to bring, in sup- 
 port of his complaint ; thirdy that the grievance alleged is a 
 real one. As the most important questions, in the present 
 case, are involved in the first of these conditions, I will glance, 
 shortly, at the third and the second, before entering, more 
 fully, on the consideration of the first. 
 
 It is alleged, on the Plaintiff^s behalf, that '^ the introduc- 
 tion of the said notes into Hungary will create a spurious cir- 
 culation there ; and by that and other means cause great detri- 
 ment to the State and to the subjects of his Imperial Majesty .^^ 
 These words contain a note-worthy admission. They avow the 
 probability, that notes which have no resemblance whatever 
 to the Austrian notes now in circulation, which are in the 
 Hungarian language (which the Austrian notes are not), and 
 whose only possible claim to credit or respect is that they bear 
 the signature " Kossuth,'^ are likely to be received and ac- 
 cepted as money by the people of Hungary. The complainant 
 could hardly utter his own condemnation more emphatically 
 than this. 
 
 As to " detriment to the State and to the subjects," I need 
 only say, that the Austrian Government, ten years ago, by 
 an act of lawless violence, confiscated an enormous sum of 
 Notes which were then, under the full sanction and authority 
 of the Law, in circulation in Hungary ; that it gave no value 
 for these notes, and has never since acknowledged any claim 
 on their account ; and that, therefore, it lies not in the mouth 
 of the Emperor of Austria to suggest '^ detriment " by the cir- 
 culation of any notes in the redemption of which, in the face 
 of experience, any of the people of Hungary choose to put any 
 confidence. And you know, my Lord, that " Her Majesty's 
 Government hold that the people in question are themselves 
 the best judges of their own affairs.""^ 
 
 So much for the third head: now for the second. It is 
 alleged, as the only state of facts upon which the complainant 
 supports his complaint, that " the King of Hungary has, in 
 right of his crown, \a\ the sole and exclusive privilege of issuing, 
 
 * Despatch of Lord J. Russell to Sir J. Hudson, dated 27 October, 1860. 
 
11 
 
 and of authorizing the issue, in Hungary, of notes for pay- 
 ment of nioney, intended to be circulated in that country as 
 money ; and also [6] the sole and exclusive privilege of autho- 
 rizing to be affixed to any document, intended to be published 
 or circulated in Hungary, the Royal arms of that country/^ 
 
 I take the liberty to affirm, that the very statement of these, 
 as the- only facts in support of the complaint, ought at once 
 to have caused the Bill to be dismissed. The Court was bound 
 to take judicial notice that neither of these statements could 
 possibly be true. Nor, if true, does it lie on an English Court 
 of Justice to enforce a foreign law. 
 
 An important observation arises here, which must be borne 
 in mind throughout the remainder of what I have to say. An 
 English Court can only take cognizance of a complaint, when 
 the matter of complaint is a wrong according to English Law. 
 I have gone fully into this point in my argument on the 
 Canada Extradition Case; and as that argument has had a 
 very wide circulation, and is now admitted to be unanswerable, 
 it is unnecessary to re-discuss this matter here. 
 
 We all know that none of the Superior Courts of Law in 
 England can take cognizance of the use of a coat-of-arms. 
 Rudolph Count Apponyi should have gone to Garter King- 
 at-Arms, and not to your Lordship, with such a complaint in 
 the first instance ; and when he got your tardy reply, he should 
 have inquired, not for the Lord Chancellor, but when the 
 Duke of Norfolk will hold his first Court. Per ad venture, in- 
 deed, he had heard that the Lord Chancellor has brought in 
 a " Trade Marks ^' Bill ; and being of opinion, perhaps, that a 
 '^ King of Hungary " may treat his loving subjects as mere 
 goods and chattels, he supposed that this Bill will apply to the 
 present case. That supposition will be found, however, to 
 have been a fond delusion. 
 
 Rudolph Count Apponyi tells us that he is "well ac- 
 quainted with the Hungarian language.'^ It is pity that he is 
 not a little better acquainted with the Hungarian Law than 
 he proves himself to be. He must pardon my presumption, 
 as an Englishman, in pretending to know anything about 
 
12. 
 
 Hungarian Law : but it is a Law well worth the study of an 
 Englishman ; and it will be found, before I have done, that it 
 is rather important to know something about its terms and 
 provisions, though the striking resemblance of its great general 
 principles to those of English Law is one of its most remark- 
 able features.^ 
 
 It is written, then, among the fundamental Laws of Hun- 
 gary^ that every Hungarian noble has a share in the sacred 
 Crown of Hungary, and that none is above him but the law- 
 fully crowned King, Kossuth is a Hungarian noble : he has 
 therefore the full right to put the figure of the Hungarian 
 Crown on any document or anything else that he pleases.f 
 
 As to ^^the Royal Arms of Hungary," I content myself 
 with explicitly denying that any such thing is recognized by 
 the law of Hungary. The Hungarian Arms are a Nationa 
 Emblem, which any Hungarian is as much entitled to use 
 in any manner he likes, to indicate his nationality, as any 
 Englishman is to mount a Union Jack. J 
 
 But the "King of Hungary" claims the "sole and exclu- 
 sive privilege" of issuing Notes. Happily, this is a claim 
 which can be set aside with the greatest ease, and with abun- 
 dant illustration. 
 
 * In a work which I published twelve years ago, and which had then a wide 
 circulation, the comparison between English and Hungarian Law was illustrated 
 in several of the most interesting branches. See " Parallels between the Con- 
 stitution and Constitutional History of England and Hungary," 1849. I have 
 since learned that there exists an old Latin work on the same subject, and with 
 nearly the same Title. But I have never seen it. 
 
 t The following are from the fundamentallaws of Hungary : — " Nobiles per 
 quandam participationem et connexionem immediate prsedeclaratam, membra 
 sacra Corona esse censentur ; nuUiusque, prseter principis legitime coronati sub- 
 sunt protestati." (Jus Consuetudinarium K-egni Huugarise, Pars I. tit. iv. § 1). 
 
 [De quatuor privilegiatis et prsecipuis nobihum Hbertatibus.] 
 
 " Secunda libertas est, quod nobiles totius Regni, nullius prseterquam prin- 
 cipis legitime coronati subsint potestati." {ih. tit. ix. § 4.) 
 
 X King Mathias Corvinus, in a letter addressed to the College of Cardinals, 
 in the time of Pope Sixtus IV., used these words : — 
 
 " Sua Sanctitas certa esse debet duplieatam illam crucem quse Regni nostri 
 est insigne, gentem Hungaricam liberius triplicare velle," etc. j — thus showing 
 tliat the " arms " are not royal arms of the King, but arms of the Kingdom of 
 Hungary. See also, paragraph " secuncld'^ in note, p. 16. 
 
13 
 
 Such a claim can only rest upon the Prerogative of coinage^ 
 which has usually been recognized in civilized countries. But 
 an English Court is bound to take judicial notice of the Law 
 of England on this matter, and of the recognized Law of 
 Nations. The Law of Hungary is entirely in accordance with 
 these. 
 
 If your Lordship will take the trouble to refer to the Insti- 
 tutes of Lord Coke, or to any other real authority on such 
 subjects, you will find that the Prerogative of the Crown as 
 to money, extends only to CoiUj and that this coin is, by the 
 common law, limited to gold and silver. It would be mere 
 pedantry to do more, now, than give a few references on this 
 subject.^ The Crown of England can neither make nor issue 
 any money, other than gold and silver coin, without the as- 
 sent of Parliament. 
 
 How stands the Law of Nations on this subject ? Your 
 Lordship is familiar with Vattel. Thus speaks that great 
 authority : — '^ Since the State is. surety for the goodness of 
 the money and its currency, the public authority alone has 
 the right of coining it. Those who counterfeit it, violate the 
 rights of the sovereign, whether they make it of the same 
 standard and value or not. These are called coiners, and their 
 crime is justly considered as one of the greatest. For, if they 
 coin base money, they rob both the public and the prince ; and 
 if they coin good, they usurp the prerogative of the sovereign. 
 They cannot afford to make good, without there be a profit 
 allowed for making it ; and then they rob the State of the 
 profit to which it only belongs. In both cases, they do an 
 injury to the sovereign ; for the public credit being surety 
 for the money, the sovereign alone has a right to order its 
 being coined. Thus the right of coining is placed among 
 the prerogatives of majesty. . . . From the principles just 
 laid down, it is easy to conclude, that if one nation counter- 
 feits the money of another, or if it allows and protects the 
 
 * See 2nd Inst., pp. 574-579 ; 3rd Inst., pp. 16-18 ; 1 Blaekstone's Com- 
 mentaries, pp. 277, 278 ; also the Statutes 37 G-eo. III. c. 126 j 43 Geo. III. 
 c. 139 ; 2 Wm. lY. c. 34, etc. 
 
 C 
 
14 
 
 coiners who presume to do it^ it does that nation an in- 
 jury/'^ 
 
 Both the rule, and the reason for it, are strictly confined to 
 coin, and to the attempt to pass a baser metal as if it were the 
 duly authenticated good coin of full value. A mere promise 
 to pay, is; on the face of it, a matter of credit only. 
 
 The Law of Hungary is exactly in accordance with that of 
 England and with international Law. The King of Hungary 
 has never had any power to issue promises to pay in the name 
 of the Nation. To enable this to be done, an enactment by 
 the Diet is necessary. And it does happen, as a matter of 
 fact, that the only person who, at this moment, has lawful 
 power to issue Notes in the name of the Hungarian nation, is 
 Louis Kossuth, the defendant in this cause. This power was 
 expressly given to him twice : first, when he was Minister of 
 Finance under King Ferdinand V. ; a second time when, on 
 Ferdinand^ s abdication, he was appointed, by the Diet, to be 
 Governor of Hungary. The Austrian Government not only 
 confiscated both these sets of lawfully issued Notes, but stole 
 and appropriated the silver which was lodged, by Louis Kossuth, 
 to the amount of two millions of florins, in the Bank of Pesth, 
 as a metallic basis for the Note currency thus established by law. 
 
 The Law of England failing to give yOur Lordship any means 
 of doing a service to the Austrian Government on any of these 
 points, the public waits with impatience ^!0 know how ^^ Equity ^^ 
 could be made use of to over-ride the Law ? 
 
 I come now to the first thing that has to be made good by 
 the Complainant on the face of his Complaint ; — the first step, 
 which is essential to give him any standing-place at all as 
 Complainant. 
 
 Every Court of Law in England is bound to take judicial 
 notice of the notorious facts of History, as well as of the Laws 
 of England. This Complaint sets forth, that the complainant 
 is "King of Hungary," and ''as such'' makes his complaint. 
 The sole and exclusive ground on which he rests his case 
 is, that he is " King of Hungary." Now it is a notorious 
 
 * ' Law of Nations,' Book I. cli. x. § 107. 
 
15 
 
 fact of history, that this Emperor of Austria is not King of 
 Hungary, but, in the eye of the Law, a mere Usurper there. 
 Had the Emperor of Austria set up his claim as Emperor , and 
 as having, de facto, kept Hungary beneath his heel by force 
 for twelve years, there might have been a question raised as 
 to what conventional recognition must be diplomatically given 
 to this position. But when the claim is set up in the name 
 of '^ King of Hungary,'^ and of rights which are only pre- 
 tended to belong to him " as such,^' these considerations are 
 put altogether aside by the Plaintiff's own act. 
 
 If somebody were to make a complaint in the Court of 
 Chancery, under pretence that he is James III. King of Eng- 
 land, and claiming, " as such,'' certain rights, would Sir James 
 Stuart, with all his natural sympathy for his illustrious name- 
 sake, grant an Order of Injunction against Mr. Gladstone, — 
 and this, without the Plaintiff entering into any undertaking 
 as to costs? If he would not, then the course of the Court 
 on the present occasion stands self-condemned. 
 
 The History of Hungary is part of the History of Europe. 
 The Crown of Hungary is a matter of strict settlement, by the 
 Legislature of the Nation, exactly the same as is that of Eng- 
 land. But it does happen that the Law sworn to by every 
 King of Hungary contains the explicit recognition, that the 
 right of electing and crowning a King is inherent in the States 
 of the realm themselves, and that it is only by express terms 
 of settlement that the House of Hapsburg has, under the ful- 
 filment of certain conditions , any claim to the throne.^ 
 
 Although in Hungary, as in England, a Settlement of the 
 Crown was determined on, so that open disputes should not 
 arise at every death of the occupant of the Throne, this right 
 to the Crown is only inchoate until actual coronation ; and 
 this coronation is obliged to take place within six months after 
 
 * " Et nonnisi post omnimodum prsedicti sexus defectum, avitam et veterem 
 apjprolatamque et receptam consuetudinem prcerogativamque Statuum et Ordi- 
 num in Electione et Coronatione Begum locum habituram, reservant intelligen- 
 dam." — (Section 11 of Article II. of the Act of the Diet in and by which alone 
 the present branch of the Hapsburgs was accepted by the States of Hungary, 
 A.D. 1723.) And see next page, paragraph '' quarto " of note. 
 
16 
 
 the DEATH of the last occupant ; and it must be preceded by 
 the formal putting forth of a Diploma, under the hand and the 
 oath of the heir himself; in which Diploma the rights and 
 liberties of the Nation, as a separate and independent nation, 
 are solemnly re-declared and guaranteed. Without the assent 
 of the States, together with the lawfully crowned King, no law 
 can be altered ; and a Diet must be held at the least once 
 every three years. 
 
 Your Lordship will observe that Hungary is expressly de- 
 clared to be an independent kingdom, not annexed to any other 
 State, but having its own separate Constitution.^ 
 
 * In order to prevent doubt or question, I here give the originals of some of 
 the recorded Laws of Hungary. But it is necessary to observe that, at every 
 Coronation, these fundamental rights and liberties of the nation were re-de- 
 clared, and the declaration was enrolled among the records of the Diet. They 
 will be found in the Corpus Juris Sungarici. The editions of this work which 
 I have used are those of 1751 and 1822. 
 
 " [Successionem foemineam] per prseattactum foemineum sexum August® 
 Domus eiusdem, prsevio modo declaratos hseredes et successores utriusque 
 sexus Archiduces Austrise, acceptandam ratHiabendam et una cum praemissis, 
 seque-modo prsevio per Sacratissimam Csesaream et Eegiam Majestatem clemen- 
 tissime confirmatis diplomaticis, aliisque prsedeclaratis Statuum et Ordinum 
 E,egni, Partiumque, Regnorum et Provinciarum eidem annexarum libertatibus, 
 et prerogativis ad tenorem prsecitatorum articulorum, futuris semper tempori- 
 bus, occasione coronationis observandam determinant. (Sec. 10 of Article II. 
 of Act of Diet, 1723.) 
 
 " Fideles Status et Ordines IncKti Regni Hungarise et Partium annexarum, 
 ultro per suam Majestatem E-egiam pro fausta Sui Coronatione ad Disetam con- 
 vocati, peroptime recordantur, quahter vigore articulorum 1, 2, et 3, 1723, jus 
 Hsereditarise Successionis in regno Hungarise, Partibus, Eegnis, et Provinciis 
 eidem annexis, in sexum foemineum Augustse Domus Austriacse translatum 
 fuerit, quodve erga semper occasione cujushbet inaugurationis ad prsescriptum 
 legum suscipiendse, prcemittendam diplomaticorum articulorum accept ationem, 
 jv/ramentique depositionem, Eum, quem juxta prsestabihtum successionis ordi- 
 nem, eadem successio respiciet, pro legitimo suo rege et domino habituros et 
 coronaturos se declaraverint. (Preamble to entry of Diploma of Leopold II. on 
 Acts of Diet, 1790.) 
 
 " Secundo. Saeram Regni [not regis"] Coronam, juxta veterem consuetudinem 
 ipsorum regnicolarum, legesque patrias, per certas de eorum medio, unanimiter, 
 sine discrimine reUgionis, ad hoc delectas et deputatas, personas seculares, in 
 hoc regno conservabimus. 
 
 " Quarto. Quod in casu, quem Deus procul avertere velit, defectus utriusque 
 
17 
 
 When, therefore, in 1848, Lord Palmerston told the duly 
 authorized Hungarian envoy, — who happened to be the dis- 
 tinguished Historian, Ladislaus Szalay, — that any communi- 
 cation which he had to make must be made through the Aus- 
 trian Ambassador, he not only committed a political blunder 
 of the first magnitude, which will reflect for ever on his States- 
 manship, but he made a very ridiculous historical mistake, 
 
 sexuB Archiducum Austria), prseprimis quidem ab altefato nostro avo Carolo 
 VI", dein in hujus defectu a divo olira Josepho 1°, his quoque deficientibus, ex 
 lumbis divi olim Leopoldi I' Imperatorum et Eegum Hungarise descenden- 
 tium juxta etiam dictamen prsecitatorum primi et secundi articidorum prse- 
 fatse disetse anni 1723, prcerogativa regies electionis, coronationisque, antefato- 
 rum, Statuum et Ordinum, in pristinum vigorem statumque redibit, et penes 
 hoc Eegnum Ilungarise, et prsedictas partes, eiusdemque antiquam consuetudi- 
 nem illibate remanebit. 
 
 " Quinto. Ut prsemissum est, toties, quoties eiusmodi inauguratio Kegia in- 
 tra ambitum ssepefati Regni Hungarise, successivis temijoribus disetaliter in- 
 stauranda erit, toties haeredes et successores Nostri futuri neo-coronandi hseredi- 
 tarii Reges, prcBtniUendam habebunt prsesentis diplomaticse assecurationis ac- 
 ceptationem, deponendumque sxxi^ermde Juramentum." 
 
 The last three are from the Diploma jprcemittendum itself of Leopold II. 
 Ferdinand Y. swore to the same. 
 
 " Ad penitus e medio toUendum omne dubium, quod ex tenore quorundam 
 verborum acceptati a Sacratissima Begia Majestate, et extradati diplomatis in- 
 auguralis de coronatione per hsereditarios Hungarise Eeges su.scipienda contra 
 fundamentales regni leges obmotum est, futurisve temporibus obmoveri posset, 
 clementer annuit Csesareo Eegia Apostolica Majestas, ut inauguratio corona- 
 tioque Regia, cum singula regiminis mutatione, intra sex meusium a die ohitus 
 DEFUNCTi regis computandum spatium, ritu legali inomisse suscipiatur^ salvis 
 tamen intermedio tempore omnibus juribus hsereditariis Regis, quse ad publi- 
 cam, constitutionique conformem regni administrationem pertinent, salvis non 
 minus eidem Regi debitis homagialis fidei obligationibus, privilegiorum nihilo- 
 minus collatione imposterum quoque penes solam legitime coronatum regiara. 
 Majestatem permansura. (Article III. of Diet of 1790.) 
 
 " Leges ferendi, abrogandi, interpretandi potestatem in Regno hoc Hungarije, 
 partibusque annexis, salva art. 8, 1741, dispositione legitime coronato Principi 
 et Statibus et Ordinibus regni ad comitia legitime confluentibus, commimem 
 esse, nee extra ilia exerceri posse, Sua Majestas Sacratissima ultro ac sponte 
 agnoscit, ac se jus hoc Statuum illibatum conservaturam, atque prout illud a 
 divis suis Majoribus acceperat, ita etiam ad Augustos suos Successores inviola- 
 tum transmissuram benigne declaravit. Status et Ordiues securos reddens, 
 nunquam per edicta seu sic dictas patentales, quse alioquin in nulHs unquam 
 
18 
 
 which will compel all impartial men to think but very little of 
 his personal accomplishments.* 
 
 judiciis regni acceptari possunt, regnum, et partes adnexas gubernandas fore, 
 expeditione patentalium ad ilium duntaxat casum reservata, ubi in rebus, legi 
 alioquin conformibus, publicatio debito cum effectu hac unica ratione obtineri 
 valeret. Proinde, 
 
 " Forma judiciorum lege stabilita aut stabilienda, authoritate regia non immu- 
 tabitur, nee legitimarum sententiarum executiones mandatis impedientur aut 
 per alios impediri admittentur, nee sententise legitimse fororum judiciariorum 
 alterabuntur, imo nee in revisionem Regiam, nee ullius Dicasterii politici per- 
 tralientur, sed secundum conditas hucusque, aut in futurum condendas leges, 
 receptam regni consuetudinem, judicia per judices absque discrimine religionis 
 deligendos celebrabuntur, executiva autem potestas nonnisi in sensu legum per 
 Eegiam Majestatem exercebitur. (Article XII. of Diet of 1790.) 
 
 " Singulo triennio, aut publica regni utilitate, et necessitate exigents etiam 
 citius, ad exigentiam sancitarum superinde Regni legum, signanter 1655 : art. 4, 
 1715 : art. 14, 1723 : artic. 7 hie loci renovatorum, per Majestatem Regiam 
 generalis Regni Diseta indicetur : ad quam Status et Ordines citra omne ponen- 
 dum impedimentum comparituri, disetaliaque negotia legali cum libertate per- 
 tractaturi sunt. Ut autem pertractatis debite propositionibus regiis, cuncta justa 
 gravamina universorum Statuum et Ordinum Regni in qualibet diseta effective, 
 et inomisse toUantur, legesque in singula diseta condendse exacte effectuentur, 
 et effectuari procurentur, Majestas Regia futuris quibusvis temporibus, vi mu- 
 neris sui Regii curatura est. (Article XIII. of Diet of 1790.) 
 
 "Erga demissam Statuum et Ordinum regni propositionem. Sua quoque 
 Majestas Sacratissima benigne agnoscere dignata est, quod licet successio sexus 
 foeminei Augustse Domus Austriacse per articulos 1 et 2, 1723, in Regno Hun- 
 garise partibusque eidem adnexis stabilita, eundera quem in reliquis Regnis et 
 ditionibus hsereditariis in et extra Germaniam sitis, juxta stabilitum src- 
 CESSiONis OEDINEM inscparabilitcr ac indivisibiliter possidendis, Principem 
 concernat : Hungaria nihilominus cum partibus adnexis sit Begnum liberum et 
 relate ad totam legalem regiminis formam (hue intellectis quibus vis dicasteriis 
 suis), independenSy id est nulli altera regno aut jpopulo ohnoxium, sed propriam 
 hahens consistentiam et constitutionem, proinde a legitime coronato hsereditario 
 Rege suo, adeoque etiam a sua Majestate Sacratissima, successoribusque eius 
 Hungarise Regibus, propriis legibus et consuetudinibus, non vero ad normam 
 aliarum provinciarum dictantibus id articulis 3, 1715, item 8 et 11, 1741, re- 
 gendum et gubemandum." (Article X. of Diet of 1790.) 
 
 * The following is the litera scripta from which Lord Palmerston cannot 
 escape : — 
 
 " LoED Eddisbtjey to Ladislaus Szalay. 
 
 " Foreign Office, Dec. lUh, 1848. 
 
 " I am directed by Viscount Palmerston to acknowledge the receipt of your 
 
19 
 
 When Ferdinand V., King of Hungary, was crowned, 
 having already given, on the 25th of September, 1830, his 
 solemn Diploma as already mentioned, he swore "by the 
 Living God, and by His most Holy Mother, the blessed Virgin 
 Mary, and by all the Saints, that We will preserve and main- 
 tain God^s Church, the Prelates, Barons, Magnates, Nobles, 
 Free Cities, and all other inhabitants, in all their immuni- 
 ties and liberties, rights, laws, and privileges, according to the 
 old, good, and time-tried customs, and that we will do Justice 
 to them all."* 
 
 Ferdinand the Fifth was a well-meaning man, but easily led 
 away by those more artful. He thus allowed himself to put 
 his name to many unlawful things, of which it is only neces- 
 sary for me now to allude to the Decree of 3rd of October, 
 1848.t But when those about him sought to make him go 
 
 letter of the 11th inst. ; and, in reply, I am to say that Viscount Palmerston 
 is sorry he cannot receive you. The British Government has no Icnowledge of 
 Hungary^ except as one of the component parts of the Austrian JEmpire ; and 
 any communication which you have to makp to her Majesty's Government, in 
 regard to the commercial intercourse between Great Britain and Hungary, 
 should therefore be made through Baron Koller, the representative of the 
 Emperor of Austria at this Court." 
 
 I wish that the space of such a publication as the present allowed me to give 
 some more of the correspondence on this subject. 
 
 * The original is as follows : — 
 
 " Nos Ferdinandus, Dei Gratia Eex Hungarise, etc., juramus per Deum vivum, 
 per ejus Sanctissimam Genitricem Virginem Mariam, ac omnes Sanctos, quod 
 Ecclesias Dei, Dominos, Prelatos, Barones, Magnates, Nobiles, Oivitates liberas, 
 et omnes regnicolas in suis immunitatibus ac hbertatibus, juribus, legibus, pri- 
 vilegiis, ac in antiquis bonis, et approbatis consuetudinibus conservabimus, omni- 
 busque justitiam faciemus ; Serenissimi condam Andrese Eegis Decreta (exclusa 
 tamen, et semota, articuli 31 eiusdem decreti clausula, incipiente, ' quodsi vero 
 nos,' etc., usque ad verba : *in perpetuum facultatem') observabimus ; fines Eegni 
 Nostri Hungarise, et quae ad illud quocunque jure aut titulo pertinent, non 
 alienabimus, nee minuemus, sed quoad poterimus augebimus, et extendemus j 
 omniaque ilia faciemus, qusecunque pro bono publico, honore et increment© 
 omnium Statuum, ac totius regni Nostri Hungarise juste facere poterimus. Sic 
 nos Deus adjuvet et omnes Sancti." 
 
 t See tliis, at full length, in " Parallels between England and Himgary," pp. 
 84, 85. 
 
20 
 
 further, his kingly oath rose up before his conscience. " But 
 my oath ! my oath !'^ was his exclamation. That a royal 
 Hapsburg should be troubled about his oath, seemed so ridi- 
 culous, that those about him forthwith told the world that 
 Ferdinand was an idiot; and they forced him to abdicate. 
 They then set up the young man Francis Joseph as " Emperor 
 of Austria" in his place, — well assured that the education of 
 this young man had been so well attended to, that there was 
 no danger of his being troubled in conscience about oaths. I 
 may remind your Lordship, that the parties to this creditable 
 transaction were, the Archduchess Sophia, Prince "Windisch- 
 gratz, Prince Schwartzenberg, and the Ban Jellachich. 
 
 Francis Joseph is not even the next heir of Ferdinand V. 
 The next heir was passed over. I have to add, that Ferdinand 
 V. is still alive, and is, at this moment, the only lawfully 
 crowned King of Hungary; that his abdication was never 
 presented to the Hungarian Diet, nor has any action ever 
 been taken upon it by the States of Hungary : that Francis 
 Joseph, now calling himself " King of Hungary," has never 
 been acknowledged by the Diet, — has never given the Diploma 
 which I have shown to be the essential preliminary to Coro- 
 nation, — and has never, in fact, been crowned. He has nei- 
 ther the inchoate right to be " King of Hungary," nor is he 
 actual " King of Hungary." He cannot therefore claim any 
 of the prerogatives that belong to the King of Hungary ^^ as 
 stich." The right to deal with the Crown of Hungary has 
 clearly reverted, — according to the fundamental law of Hun- 
 gary, sworn to by every one of her Kings of the Hapsburg 
 race, — to the States of the Nation. 
 
 I have shown that Francis Joseph of Austria is not King 
 of Hungary. Your Lordship may, in your nervous anxiety 
 to serve the interests of the illustrious House of Hapsburg- 
 Lorraine, say that the Law of Hungary hereon is not a Law 
 of which English Courts can take judicial notice. I admit 
 this, so far as the facts are not (which, however, most of them 
 are) matters of notoriety in the History of Europe. But this 
 only places your Lordship in a still greater difficulty than 
 
21 
 
 before. A man who has, for more than eleven years, been 
 unblushingly acting the Usurper, cannot now be let coolly 
 set up this sudden claim to Kingship. He must remember 
 that the Emperor' Joseph II., the son of Maria Theresa her- 
 self, was never acknowledged as King by Hungary, nor does 
 his name appear in a single Statute of the Hungarian Corpus 
 Juris, Francis Joseph must show that he is King according 
 to the Laws of Hungary ; or else he must submit to have the 
 case adjudged simply in accordance with English Law. 
 
 I have shown that, according to Hungarian Law, Francis 
 Joseph of Austria has not the shadow of a pretence for calling 
 himself " King of Hungary .^^ I will now demonstrate, by 
 authorities that your Lordship will not venture for a moment 
 to question, that, according to the thoroughly settled Law of 
 England, he cannot be King of Hungary, and cannot be 
 treated as such by any Court of Law in England. 
 
 Your Lordship is aware that, by the Law of England, it is 
 expressly declared to be High Treason even to affirm that the 
 descent and limitation of the Crown do not depend wholly 
 upon Parliament. 
 
 Circumstances have twice occurred, in modern English 
 History, which have made it necessary that the Law of Eng- 
 land should be yet further declared with precision and clear- 
 ness upon this very subject. Upon thS declarations of the Law 
 thus made, the present occupancy of the Throne of England, 
 and the condition of many other parts of our Laws, entirely 
 depend. The English Government, and every Court of Law 
 in England, are alike bound to take notice of this state of 
 the Law in England. 
 
 Your Lordship will remember that, on the 28th January, 
 1688 [9], the House of Commons passed a Eesolution, that 
 James II. had " abdicated the Government, and that the 
 throne is thereby become vacant/^ You will further remember 
 that this Resolution grated on the ears of the House of Lords ; 
 and that their Lordships begged the Commons to alter " ab- 
 dicated" into " deserted/^ and to leave out the words declaring 
 that *' the throne is thereby become vacant.'^ Thereupon a 
 
22 
 
 free conference was held between the Houses. The arguments 
 then used apply exactly in the present case. There had not 
 been indeed, in that case, as there has been in this, an express 
 abdication ; but it is still stronger to the point, that the Acts 
 of the Crown were taken to import, in themselves, an abdica- 
 tion ; and the vacancy of the throne, and that it could not be 
 filled by the next heir, were insisted on. Both these were 
 finally adjudged to be the Law, by both Houses. 
 
 The Acts of the last days of Ferdinand V. (especially the 
 Decree of 3rd Oct. 1848) surpass anything that was done by 
 James II. As to Francis Joseph, had he ever been King of 
 Hungary, the same remark and result would apply. I quote 
 a few passages only, from names which will be as familiar to 
 your Lordship as household words, in order to refresh your 
 Lordship^s memory upon these important declarations of the 
 Law of England. But I beg that it may be distinctly under- 
 stood, that I could quote page after page to the same effect, 
 and only varying the point of view taken to give strength to 
 the argument. 
 
 " King James the Second," said Mr. Somers, " by going 
 about to subvert the Constitution, and by breaking the Original 
 Contract between King and People, and by violating the fun- 
 damental Laws, and withdrawing himself out of the Kingdom, 
 hath thereby renounced* to be a King according to that Con- 
 stitution. By avowing to govern by a despotic power un- 
 known to the Constitution, and inconsistent with it, he* hath 
 renounced to be a King according to the Law, — such a King 
 as he swore to be at his Coronation, — such a King to whom 
 the Allegiance of an English Subject is due ; and hath set up 
 another kind of Dominion; which is to all intents an Abdica- 
 tion or abandoning of his legal Title, as fully as if it had been 
 done by express Words." 
 
 " It is," said Sir George Treby, " because the King hath 
 thus violated the Constitution, by which the Law stands, as the 
 Rule both of the King's Government and the People's Obedi- 
 ence, that we say, he hath abdicated and renounced the Gover?i- 
 ment. For all other particular breaches of the law, the Sub- 
 
23 
 
 ject may have Remedy in the ordinary Courts of Justice_, or 
 the extraordinary Court of Parliamentary Proceedings. But 
 where such an attempt as this is made on the Essence of the 
 Constitution, it is not we that have brought ourselves into 
 this State of Nature, but those who have reduced our legal 
 well-established Frame of Government into such a State of 
 Confusion, as we are now seeking a Redress unto." 
 
 And what said that fine old English Lawyer, Serjeant May- 
 nard ? — " It is by our law an Hereditary Monarchy. I grant 
 it ; but though it should, in an ordinary way, descend to the 
 Heir, yet, as our case is, we have a Maxim in Law, as certain 
 as any other, which stops the course ; for no Man can pretend 
 to be King James's heir while he is living : Nemo est hceres 
 viventisJ' In the same way, the Hungarian Law only recognizes 
 the heir '^ defuncti regis.'' 
 
 Your Lordship is well aware that our present " happy set- 
 tlement" rests, exclusively, on the recognition of the Law 
 thus clearly laid down. 
 
 A hundred years later, another great occasion arose, in 
 which it was necessary that the Law of England should be de- 
 clared as to the power and rights of Parliament in the case of 
 a vacancy in what may be called the Crown-power. This case 
 also applies, with singular aptness, to the position of Ferdinand 
 V. It is not possible for it to be maintained, in England, 
 after these two great declarations of the Law, that any other 
 power or authority, except that of the States of the Realm, 
 can, in a Constitutional Kingdom, give any claim to the 
 Crown, or to the exercise of royal prerogatives and powers, 
 under such circumstances as those in which Francis Joseph 
 finds himself. 
 
 When, in 1788, King George III. was incapacitated, the 
 question arose, what should be done? Unwise friends of the 
 Prince Regent pretended (very inconsistently with their usual 
 professions) that the Prince had a "right" to the exercise of 
 the functions of the Crown. The debates were long, and their 
 importance was fully felt, both in Parliament and out of it. 
 " To assert," said Mr. Pitt, in his place in Parliament, " to 
 
24 
 
 assert such a right in the Prince of Wales, or any one else, 
 independent of the decision of the two Houses of Parliament^ is 
 little less than Treason to the Constitution of the country.^' 
 Again : — " It is subversive of the principles of the Constitu- 
 tion, to admit that the Prince of Wales might seat himself on 
 the throne during the lifetime of his father; and the intima- 
 tion of the existence of such a right, presents a question of 
 greater magnitude and importance, even than the present exi- 
 gency and the provision that it necessarily requires ; a ques- 
 tion that involves in it the principles of the Constitution, the 
 protection and security of our liberties, and the safety of the 
 State. ... It is our first duty to decide whether there be any 
 right in the Prince of Wales to claim the exercise of the regal 
 power, under any circumstances of the country, independent 
 of the actual demise of the Crown/^ And after long and able 
 debates, in both Houses, it was resolved, by both Houses, 
 *' That it is the Right and Duty of the Lords Spiritual and 
 Temporal, and Commons, of Great Britain, now assembled, 
 and lawfully, fully, and freely representing all the Estates of 
 the people of this realm, to provide the means of supplying 
 the defect of the personal exercise of the Royal authority." 
 
 Nothing can be more explicit than the whole transaction, 
 or more important and definitive than the clear declaration of 
 the Law applicable on such occasions. And Mr. Pitt well de- 
 served the thanks that were voted to him, your Lordship will 
 remember, by the Corporation of London and every town of 
 any importance in the kingdom, for his "strenuous support 
 of the important Rights of the Lords and Commons of this 
 Realm.''* 
 
 The Law of England as to the claim to the throne, and to 
 the exercise of Royal authority, under circumstances parallel 
 to those in which Hungary now stands, is thus clear and indis- 
 putable. Francis Joseph has never been accepted as King of 
 Hungary by the only authority which, both by its own Laws 
 and by the Law of England, can make his title to be king 
 even a possible contingency. Therefore his claim, as Plaintiff' 
 in this suit, falls necessarily to the ground. The only way in 
 
25 
 
 which he could now, by possibility, establish a claim to be 
 king, would be, by the Diet's meeting in the most full and 
 solemn manner (though the Summons, as in the case of our 
 William III., must necessarily be to a Convention only), and 
 consenting to wipe out the memory of twelve years of usurpa- 
 tion and crime, and inviting Francis Joseph to be King, and 
 accepting from him the Diploma and the Coronation Oath 
 which his forerunners. Kings of Hungary, have given and 
 taken. In no other possible manner, can the Plaintiff in this 
 suit ever come into Court with any standing-ground what- 
 ever ; and nothing less than this can make it even excusable, 
 much less justifiable, for an English Court of Law, or for an 
 English Government, to recognize this pretence, now suddenly 
 set up, to be " King of Hungary,^' and " as such" to invoke 
 the authority of the State of England to put its hand upon 
 any man who is living within the shelter of England. 
 
 Your Lordship must be well aware that there are many 
 other points which I could take up, and enlarge upon in rela- 
 tion to this subject : but I purposely forbear to do more than 
 fix attention upon the facts and the Law as they arise upon 
 the face of this Bill, so strangely and suddenly filed in Chan- 
 cery, after Her Majesty's Government had taken twenty days 
 to consider whether they could help the behests of Austria. 
 
 The Austrian Emperor wants to get an English Court of 
 Law to affirm, before the world, that Usurpation, — and this 
 Usurpation itself maintained only by borrowed bayonets : for 
 Hungary defeated Austria in the field, until Russia intervened 
 with arms, — shall be held to be above Constitutional Right, 
 and the inherited Liberties of Nations, and the letter of even 
 express and sworn-to Law ; and that to the first, and not to 
 these last, English Courts will do obeisance ; and that of this 
 first they will become the willing instruments within the shores 
 of England. 
 
 Shall the Courts of Law in England be thus prostituted ? 
 and shall the name and honour of England — nay, the very 
 basis on which her own Crown and Institutions at this mo- 
 ment rest — be thus trailed in the dirt before a watching world, 
 
36 
 
 to gratify an Emperor-Plaintiff of the perjured House of Haps- 
 burg-Lorraine ? 
 
 The believers in the traditions of a feeble diplomacy, may 
 delight to maunder about trying to prop up the tottering State 
 of Austria, and may not hesitate, for this purpose, to set good 
 faith, eonsistency, and the Laws of Nations and of England 
 at naught. But such a feeble policy will be a failure, my 
 Lord. In the grateful heart of the independent Nation of Hun- 
 gary, England would have an invaluable friend, and Europe a 
 much-needed counterpoise. In that " unnatural union of dis- 
 jointed things" which diplomatists call Austria , England has 
 no friend, and Europe has no strength. Think you, my Lord, 
 that the despatches between yourself and Sir James Hudson, 
 — to and from, — which passed in last September, and which 
 are not to be found in the Blue-books, would redound to your 
 Lordship's honour, or to the credit of the present Government 
 of England, if they were published ? Your Lordship will un- 
 derstand my allusion, and well knows what the only answer 
 can be. 
 
 Your Lordship has professed to sympathize much with Italy, 
 a country which has let herself be trampled on for ages, and 
 has at length risen, by means of foreign aid, and turned upon 
 her oppressors, and shown herself worthy to be free. But Hun- 
 gary is a country whose own sons have always, through many 
 changeful centuries, known how to maintain their free Insti- 
 tutions, though surrounded with difficulties of the most danger- 
 ous and complicated kind. And at this moment, Hungary 
 gives to the world the marvellous spectacle of having, by her 
 self-reliance and firmness, compelled one who has been, for 
 eleven years, a mere Usurper, to sue to her for acceptance as 
 '' King." By her unswerving and dignified insistance upon her 
 Laws and Constitution, under trials the most terrible, she has 
 shown herself thoroughly worthy of the liberties she has in- 
 herited, and that she is able to maintain her own against all 
 that oppression and perfidy can do. 
 
 Let England sympathize with Italy : but let not this sym- 
 pathy be proved to be mere cant and hypocrisy, by the English 
 
27 
 
 Government being let, follow the traditions of a feeble and 
 worn-out diplomacy, and being let, in defiance of oft-repeated 
 and fulsome professions, lend itself to the behests of Austria 
 when she seeks to crush the liberties of a Nation, and to stop 
 the free action of the best Men of a nation, that are at least 
 as worthy of the admiration and support of every lover of Con- 
 stitutional Freedom, as are any Nation or Men that have ever 
 struggled for their independence or their liberties. 
 
 I have the honour to be, my Lord, 
 
 Your Lordship's obedient Servant, 
 
 TOULMIN SMITH. 
 
 Highgate : Middlesex, 
 
 5th March, 1861. 
 
 To the Eight Hon. Lord John Eussell, M.P., 
 
 Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 
 
PRINTED BY 
 
 JOHK BDWABB TATLOB, LITTLE QUEEN STREET, 
 
 LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS. 
 
I