The Press.
London, England, 1857-11-28 00:00:00

THE PRESS, NOVEMEtit 28,1857.

---
we cannot help thinking of one of the best of
all the famous " H.B's," in which, dining the
Mulgrave fever at Dublin, the Marquis was
caricatured as Mantalini turning the mangle,
while O'CONNELL was, with arrogant air, hecto
ring him as Madame Mantalini. That comic
vision is in part realised. For nine years
Lord NORMANBY has been manufacturing an
enormous mangle for himself, and his disjecta
inembra now crackle under ponderous rollers
of his own fixing.

commerce, and navigation." These terms -
are clear. Article 26 of the Treaty of Peace
also provides for the organisation of an armed
" national force " for the defence of the fron-
tiers and for the duties of an internal police;
and Article 27 forbids any " armed interven-
" Lion " in the Principalities without the con-
sent of the whole of the contracting P owers.
Such is the relation of Turkey to these Principa-
lities, her suzerainty only, not her sovereignty,
guaranteed by the great Powers, is now re-
cognised by the Moldo-Wallachs themselves.
Those, therefore, who maintain that the poli-
tical union of these provinces under one head
must abolish this suzerainty of the Porte,
argue that Moldo- Wallachia if erected into
one State would be false to its professions,
and prove too powerful for the whole of Europe
and Turkey combined ! Besides, how can it
be supposed that the Western Powers of
Europe, having solemnly bound themselves in
'56 to preserve the integrity of Turkey, should
in '57 be the first to adopt measures for the
disintegration of the Turkish empire ? The
object of Arts. 22 and 23 of the Treaty of
Paris is clear. It is to restore to these pro-
vinces, under the suzerainty of the Porte, their
ancient rights, together with the privilege of
self-government, so as to ameliorate the condi-
tion of the people ; to reform existing corrup-
tions and abuses, and by insuring the prospe-
rity of the country so to consolidate the social
position of the people as that in course of time
they shall form a solid barrier against any
aggression on Turkey. The only question,
therefore, for consideration is how best to
attain that desirable object. Experience has
sufficiently proved within the last fifty years
that the separation of these provinces has
been a fertile source of weakness to Turkey.
They have ever been the Belgian battle-field
of the East. Turkey has never been able
to give them that protection her rights
of suzerainty impose, and by their defence-
lessness, weakness, and utter disorganisation,
they have fallen an easy prey to every invader.
These are facts in which the history of this
century supports us, and it is incontestable
also that this weakness arose from that sepa•
ration of interests imposed on them by Turkey
and foste red by other Powers.
How then can we best establish such an order
of things that, while we secure to Turkey her
just rights, we give to the Principalities that
organisation we have bound ourselves to pro-
vide by treaty, and which shall enable them to
prove a future strength instead of feebleness
to Turkey ? In the face of the obvious failure
of the system of separation to effect this
end, it is clear that system cannot be re-
stored with any hopes of success ; and
it would be disgraceful to us and to France to
leave these provinces and their people as bad,
if not worse off, than they were before the war.
We have no wish whatever to weaken Turkey,
but that system of government which Lord
PALMERSTON, out of conciliation to certain
Powers, desires to re-establish in these pro-
vinces, is the one which has had a full and
fair trial, and the one which has brought about
the Treaty of Bucharest, the Convention of
Akermarn, the Treaty of Adrianople, and the
establishment of a Russian Protectorate. Its
beneficial results are, moreover, to be seen in
the misrule and corruption which has degraded
the country and impoverished the people.
Now, is this the form of government which
we can conscientiously say is in accordance
with the objects of the Russian war, with the
Treaty of Paris, or with the wants and wishes
of the people themselves ? We understand
those peculiar influences which have weight at
Constantinople, and we can appreciate the
resistance of Turkey to any permanent reform
of abuses, or to the organisation of the govern-
ment of these provinces on a healthier basis ;
but we fail to discover the reason why England,
under so sympathising a Minister with foreign
nationalities, should oppose every obstacle to
the establishment in these Principalities of
that form of government which would restore
rights and privileges to the people, give security
to the country, encouragement to commerce,
and tend to fully develop the vast resources of
the finest agricultural plains in Europe. Lord
CLARENDON, it is said, is desirous only of re-
forming the abuses of the present system.
This is only an effete concession with a view

1147

to check the admission of incontestable rights•
For his reforms to be effective they must
commence at Constantinople. It is not at
Bucharest nor at Jassy that reform is so much
needed. Besides, to reform with a view to
maintain the present system is impossible.
There can be no effective reform without Union,
and under a ruler untainted by the corruptions
of Constantinople. That is the reform the
Roumanians desire, and that we maintain is
the sound solution of the Danubian question.