virtuous republicanism upon the darkness around. In meeting you thus we design no mere display, no ineffective parade of words. We wish to give whatever weight of influence we may bear in this community, to the cause of freedom in your native land, to assist in securing to you and your nation, such aid as a nation situated as we are can _wisely_ give, so as best to subserve the interests of liberty and humanity in all the world. We regard the moral influence of this country as of the first importance; and the peaceful working of republican institutions as a daily protest against despotism. And for ourselves we pledge to you and your country, that we will, in public and private, bear your cause upon our hearts, and invoke in your behalf, the intervention of an arm that no earthly power can resist. Kossuth replied at length. The following is an extract from his speech:-- You have been pleased to refer to war as, under certain circumstances, an instrumentality of Divine Providence--and indeed so it is. Great things depend upon the exact definition of a word. There is, I suppose, nobody on earth who takes war for a moral or happy condition. Every man must wish peace; but peace must not be confounded with oppression. It is our duty, I believe, to follow the historical advice of the Scriptures, which very often have pointed out war as an instrumentality against oppression and injustice. You have very truly said that despotism is a continued war of the few against the many, of ambition against mankind. Now if that be true--(and true it is--for war is nothing else than an appeal to force)--then how can any persons claim of oppressed nations not to resort to war? Who makes war? those who defend themselves? or those who attack others? Now if it be true that despotism is a continued attack upon mankind, then war comes from that quarter, and I have no where in the world heard that an unjust attack should not be opposed by a just defence. It is absurd to entreat nations not to disturb a peace which does not exist. What would have become of Christianity in Europe (and in further consequence, also in America), if in those times, when Mohammedanism was yet a conquering power, Hungary out of love of peace had not opposed Mohammedanism in defence of Christianity? What would have become of Protestantism when assailed by Charles V, by Philip II, and others? Did Luther or others forbid the use of arms against arms, to protect for men the right of private judgment in matters of salvation. I have seen war. I know what an immense machine it is. What an immense misfortune and with what sufferings it is connected. Believe me, there is no nation which loves war, but many that fear war less than they hate oppression, which prevents both their happiness on earth and the development of private judgment for salvation in eternity.