common liberty of the people, instead of the class-privileges of old.
Moreover, in place of the old Board of Council,--which, being a
corporate body, was of course a mockery in regard to that responsibility
of the Executive, which was our chartered right on paper,--we
established the real and personal responsibility of ministers. In this,
we merely[*] upheld what was due to us by constitution, by treaties, by
the coronation-oath of every king,--the right to be "governed as a
self-consistent, independent country, by our native institutions,
according to our own laws." This and all our other reforms we effected
peacefully by careful legislation, which the King sanctioned and swore
to maintain.

[Footnote *: Many Englishmen have unjustly accused the Hungarians as
having by the laws of March, 1848, effected a SEPARATION of Hungary from
Austria. _Even if this were true_, it could not justify the cause
of the Hapsburgs. The dynasty yielded, under the pressure of
circumstances (as alone will dynasties ever yield), while Hungary did
but petition legally, and was in fact unarmed. The dynasty swore to the
new laws; and then conspired with Croatians, Serbians, and Russians to
overthrow the laws by marauding and force of arms. In fact, if in
January, 1849, Austria would have negotiated, instead of arresting all
Hungarian ambassadors, Hungary would have consented to modify the laws
of March: but the Austrians had already in October ordered the overthrow
of the whole Hungarian constitution, and had no wish to do anything by
legal methods.

At the same time, the original objection is fundamentally _false_.
No separation of the two countries was effected by the laws of March,
1848; for no legal union ever existed. Only the crowns were united, not
the countries. Kossuth rightly compares the union to that which was