The Sun.
London, England, 1858-05-05 00:00:00

causes Most unfoeunately the Austrian occupation
was prolonged to a much later period than it ought to
have been. But at length the time came, and the elec-
tions were held in the course of hist summer. The sen-
timents of the Wallachian representatives were almost en
tirely favourable to the union. But the Moldavian repre-
sentatives were believed to be opposed to it, and a most
painful controversy arose respecting the Moldavian elec-
tions. France cried aloud that they had been carried by
the most shameless and wholesale exercise of intimida-
tion and force. Documents were quoted which Ido not
hesitate to say disclosed a series of proceedings on the
part of those who were in temporary exercise of authority
in Moldavia, as shameful as any that are on record.
Through the medium of those proceedings the Molda-
vians of all classes were intimidated from voting, -and
mere handfuls of those entitled to vote gave their suf-
frages. The consequence was that a packed divan was
ready to misstate and to deny the heart's desire of the
people. But the people were not without champions, and
the language of France on this subject produced such an
effect as that after a conference at Osborne, it was de-
termined in this city that the Moldavian electors could
not be supported, and must be quashed. lam sorry to
ray that Austria and Turkey were engaged in upholding
these elections, but still quashed they were, and the
question was referred to the mass of those who were en-
titled to give their vote. That vote was given by the
different orders of the people in very large numbers. The
divan met in consequence of these two elections, and
the divan so lawfully elected was, if possible, still more
strongly in favour of the union than was the divan of
Wallachia. Now this is a case of the most singular kind,
because the elections in the Principalities are made in
classes. There are, I think, four classes—a class of
nobles, a class of clergy, a class of citizens, and a class of
peasantry—and these classes have questions of the most
difficult and painful nature between themselves. The
peasantry of those countries suffer heavily under the
present condition -of the law. They are, I believe, in a
worse condition than the peasantry of France were in
before the first revolution, and therefore there was every
thing to make those different classes go to issue with
one another ; but instead of that, one sentiment and one
desire possessed the whole. They chose men with the
same feeling with regard to this great and vital question.
All felt that if they were to be happy, if they were to be
free, if they were to have a chance of keeping
tie soil of their country unpolluted by the heel
of the :stranger, there must be a union of the Principali-
ties. These people were not trained as we are to repre-
sentative institutions. This people, whom we often hear
denoueced for their profligacy ; this people, who of
course reflect all the evil they have suffered for several
generations ; this people, with one heart and one mind,
elected by open and fair vote the popular assembly,
which was to consider this question. The result was
that in the divan of Wallachia there were but two votes
given against the union, and that in the divan of
Moldavia the vote for the union was unanimous: Now,
observe the course of policy. This question is opened in
the most solemn manner at a great European congress,
the debt of Europe to this unfortunate population is
acknowledged ; the policy of the three western powers,
who alone were in a condition to give an impartial judg-
ment, is formally proclaimed. France leads the way,
England and Sardinia fellow. Provision is made in the
treaty to refer to the judgment of the people the ques.
tion of their future organisation. The answer of the
*vie is returned with an unanimity almost unexampled
in history, That is the point to which we are now
come. Well, sir, it may perhaps be said, that best tea
the provision that the people of Moldavia and Wallachia
should be consulted, it was also provided that a coin-
mission should be appointed. Well, it was provided that
a commission should be appointed, and that that com-
mission should collect information with regard to the
state of the country, and should suggest the measures to
be taken in respect of those future arrangements. But
I, for one, respectfully demur to any such doctrine as
that the gentlemen composing this commission had
placed in their hands the virtual disposal of the vital in-
stitutions of the five millions of inhabitants of the Princi-
palities. There is, first cf all, the solemn declaration of
France and England ; secondly, there is a reference
under an article of the treaty of Paris to the judgment
of the people, and there is, thirdly, the appointment of
the commission. Why, to start the idea that these com-
missioners were to decide the question of the union is to
convict it of its own absurdity. There was a saying of
Mr. Charles Buller's with regard to the working of
representative institutions in the colonies, which was PO
true and eo pointedly applicable to the circumstances in
which he addressed it, that it had a material influence
on our colonial policy. He referred to the theory
which prevailed some twenty or thirty years among
us to this effect, that you might give your colonies
representative institutions, but the question whether
the wishes of the people, athered through their
representatives, was to prevail or not must be decide.'
in the recesses of your Colonial•office. That was the
doctrine, and the saying of Mr. Boiler was, " Well, that
is lighting the fire and stopping up the chimney." Sir,
do not let us, on the question of the Principalities, light
the fire and stop up the chimney—do not let us light the
fire of the people's desires—do not let us give the sanc-
tion of a reference to them of a matter which so effec-
tually concerns them, and then by taking five or six
commissioners and sticking them in the chimney, pre-
vent that fire from burning. (Hear.) I think I am justi-
fied in assuming !half it will not be disputed that the
union of the Prig cipalities is desired by the people rf
the Principalities. It would be easy to dwell at length
upon the question, if it were necessary, but as I rest
upon public evidence and documents of the most unim-
peachable kind, I shall assume that proposition to be
proved, and proceed to consider the rest of the case.
There is one objection, if this motion is opposed, which
may be taken. It may he said, and truly, that the people
of the Principalities have express d their desire for tee
union, and something wore. It is perfectly true that tee
divans have addressed themselves to all the points which
appeared to them material for a thorough settlement of
their political organisation. In the first place, they have
asked for a formal recognition by the powers of Europe
of what they call expressly their autonomy, that is, their
entire independence in regard to internal legislation.
That is admitted and recognised in the treaty of Paris
when it is stated that they are to have an independent
national administration. The second point to which they
have addressed themselves, and of which they make
prayer, is the neutrality of their territory. Well, Ido not
know that the neutrality of their territory is expressly
indicated in the treaty of Paris, but is has been proposed
by high authority in this house. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer about the close of the Russian war, explained
his views upon that subject in considerable detail, and
he appeared to me to show that the establishment by an
European understanding of the neutrality of the Prin-
cipalities, would in all probability prove to he a wise
and efficient measure for interposing between Russia and
Turkey the resistance of two states. The third point was
the union of the Principalities in favour of which the de-
claration of the western powers bad been made. Another
of the five points was that the Principalities should be
governed by representative institutions. Su far as these
four points are concerned, I can hardly conceive from
what quarter a doubt could arise as to the legitimacy and
reasonableness of the wishes they expressed. The fifth
point I grant is one of a more doubtful character. It is
this--that the Principalities might, in order to avoid
local jealousies, be united under a prince or chief taken
not from one of the native families but from some foreign
family. I do not ask the house to give judgment on that
subject. I see no danger in such an idea. England is
under no pledge with regard to the question of a foreign
prince, no policy has been declared favourable to such
an arrangement, The great powers of Europe must re•
serve in their own hands the ultimate decision after
hearing the opinions of the people. Bet as regards the
other four points, it appears to me that they have be-
haved with great moderation and great prudence. And
do not let us be told that it would not be safe that the
Principalities, when united, should be under a foreign
prince—do not let us be told that on that account you
are utterly to overlook the pledge you have given. with
regard to other matters infinitely more important. Well,
the union of the Principalities, which has been all but
promised on the part of France and England, which is
all but sanctioned by the most atuheritative declaration
on the part of those countries, is now about to be de-
cided at Paris, but it may be said it is not enough to
show that it has been promised, it is not enough to show
that it is desired, unless you also show that it is a good
and safe measure. Well, I own nay belief that it is a
good and safe measure, and not only that, but that there
is no other measure that is g o 1 and safe under the cite
clunstances in which you stand. In the first place I
think it is not denied that for the Principalities them-
selves union is the best measure possible. (Hear, hear.)
Imagine the condition of the peopleof those two territo.
ries. On one side, Turkey ;on another, Russia ; and
on the third, Austria ; themselves isolated as a people,
desirieg freedom, hitherto made the sport of foreign in-
trigue, constantly seeing themselves invaded by foreign
armies, constantly oppressed ey one Government or
other, who have their own purposes to serve. Can any-
thing be more natural than that they should desire. to
have some security ? Does their desire need to be jus-
tified in this house I Are we not speaking in a Parlia-
ment which has found strength in this land by uniting
with others? Weat was the old relation of Scodend
and England ? Not very unlike the relations of these
Principalities, not unlike their relations when the in-
trigues of foreign powers endeavoured to make Moldavia
the means of thwarting the interests of Wallachia. It
was se when England and Scotland were disunited.
Scotland was the ally of France and the prevailing na-
tionai sentiment r f Scotland was much mote French than
English. By uni7ire these two countries you did away
with that dissension, and added hot Fty, power, and hap-
piness to the population of she Uni ed Kingdom. We
have acted on the same principle in our own time.
What did we do with the two Caeadas ? We bid the
two Catesclas seek ttrergeh in union, and they have
found it. And unless lam much mistaken we have
offered to Australia, tee, that if the provinces choose to
form an union among themselves, in an Act of Parlia-
ment are to be found previsions by which that union
may to effected. If it were liSely to be disputed that
tete utile n of the two prinsipalities is the natural and ne-
cessary means of givirg d v.l ennent to their resources,
of realising to them the aids c f national expenditure, of
strsng,.henir g the crganisatioe of their Government, and
diminishing its expenditure—by the attainment, in short,
of every ina'erial obj ct that reasonable men could de
sire, I would then open up a more detailed argument
on the sutrjt.ct. But I assume fer the present that the
union of the Principalities is micioubtehly to be de-
sired a 3 far as the welfare of the people of those pro-
vinces is concerned. If that be so, I beseech tee
house to consider well before you determine that the
vote of this country is to be governed hy considerations
other than those of the _welfare of the people. (Hear.)
It is a dangerous and a slippery
course upon which
you etubatk wl,en you take your stand in the laced four
or five millions of men, and tea then that God Almighty
hes sent them ittto the wend not to prosecute their own
happiness and welfare by every lawful and reasonable
moans that are in their power, not to be made victims in

all that touches their public and private existence for the
peTrpose of serving other views extraneous to their inte-
rest—views that an overpowering force is determinel to
carry into effect. (IL'ar.) Well, I assume that the
union of the Principalities is good far the Principalities
themselves. Then for whom is it not good ! lam net
prepared to say that it is good for Austria or Russia. I
cannot undertake to say that it is convenient for Aus-
tria to have freedom in conjunction with prosperity close
by her threshold. (Hear.) I believe that the Princi-
palities, if you do not unite them, will be a constant
seurce of danger and uneasiness to Europe. If you do
unite them, whether the example which they may set of
good government, as I hope, will be convenient to the.
states around them, it is impossible for us to settle.
Well, sir, with regard to Russia, ram not prepared to
say that the union of the Principalities is for the inte-
rest of Russia considered as an aggressive and a con-
quering power. I trust that for the moment the self-
agerandising designs of Russia are in abeyance, because
a chastisement has been inflicted with regard to mate-
rial resources which no doubt will act, for a time at
least, upon the policy of Russia. But at some period or
other the ambition of Russia may again require to be
watched, and we must take cognisance of that policy on
the part of Russia; and if you are to take cognisance of
it, how are you to check and resist it ? It was a rare
conjunction of circumstances not likely to recur, aided
by uncommon rashness on the part of the Emperor of
Russia, which made it possible to check Russia in the
late war. Russia, if she is contemplating aggrandise-
ment, will watch the opportunity, and I thick will watch
it better than she did in 1853. England may not always
be in the humour to expend fifty or a hundred millions
of money to keep Russia within bounds. I believe that
the people of England may always be disposed to make
great sacrifices for such an object, but the alliance of
England with France is a resource not to be depended
upon. Surely the best resistance you can offer to
Russia is the resistance of a free country. You want
to place between Russia and Turkey a living barrier.
There is no barrier like the barrier offered by the breast
of freemen. Don't keep these countries after the pledge
you have given in this state of weakness and disunion.
Do not withhold from them their desire, but give them
that which will raise a barrier to Russia more formidable
than any other. Let us consider what will be the effect
of the union of the Principalities, with regard to the in-
terests of Turkey. And hers I do not enter into the ques-
tion, what is the internal state of the Turkish empire.
I will not on this occasion go into the inquiry, whether
the Mahommedan power in Europe can be sustained or
not, I assume that it is a great object of European policy
to prevent the extension of the Russian power in the
direction of Constantinople, and that the power which
now occupies Constantinople ie to be maintained as a
barrier against Russian aegrandisetuent; rrecognise the
obligation of the treaty of 1856 upon the powers of Europe
to maintain the integrity of the Turkish empire against
foreign aggression, and I therefore assume we are not to
take measures insidiously destructive to the power of
Turkey. But has the union of the Principalities the
slightest tendency to inflict injury ueon Turkey! lassert
that it has not. But that is a prop eition of great import-
aece, because there are certain views of governing men
upon which you might come to an opposite conclusion.
There are those who think teat the best mode of govern-
ing men is to govern them by force, that there is no such
thing as reason in the masses of the people, and that the
only effect of concession is to encourage the people to
greater and more extravagant demands. To those who
bold these opinions I have nothing to say, but in addres-
sing the House of Commons I presume I am addressing
the professors of an opposite creed. The legislation of
this country is founded happily upon the principle that
i
the best way to secure the institutions of a country s
both to conciliate the interests and to meet the moderate
and reasonable wishes of its people. Let us apply that
principle to the relations between Turkey and the Princi-
palities. I do not believe there is any portion of the terri-
tories in connection with the government of Constanti-
nople which have caused less of care and anxiety to the
Ottoman Porte than the Principalities. I do not speak of
their having been made the instruments and tools of fo-
reign governments; but ram speaking of the conduct and
relations of the Government. In point of fact, the history
of the relations between the Principalities and Turkey
has been this, that it was a relation extremely liberal in
its character. There was nothing stipulated on the part
of the Principalities except the acknowledgment of a no-
minal supremacy, and the payment of a moderate tribute.
I have seen with an astonishment that I cannot describe
a statement that the Turkish Minister has described the
Sultan as a Sovereign over the Principalities. I only re-
fer to it because it may have the effect of misleading. Ae
I read in the French joureale, the word " suzerain,'
which is entirely different from the word " sove-
reign" in its effect, is a word of very recent application to
the Principalities, and in effect it was never found in
connection with the Principalities before the treaty of
Adrianople in 1829. But what I want to point out is this,
that Turkey has found her safety and freedom, so far as
the Principalities are concerned, not by measures in-
tended to oppress them, but, on .the contrary, by main-
taining an easy and liberal relation towards them.
Turkey has a two-fold interest in the Principalities. The
first is the very limited one that her tribute shall be paid,
and the sec cod and more important one is that the Prin-
cipalities shall not become the property of other govern-
ments. It is not Turkey that can prevent the Brincipali-
ties being free. The union of the Principalities is not
unfavourable to Turkey ; it is not unfavourable to the
connexion with Turkey understood in the manner la
which it is defined by European law, because beyond the
payment of a small tribute, its relations with the Princi-
palities are only those of a nominal supremacy. That I be-
lieve to be the true state of this question as regards the
different parties concerned. I believe it to be entirely un-
deniable, and not to be questioned, that the union will
promote the interest of five millions of Moldavian. and
Wallachians, and a, respects European policy with regard
to Russia I cannot but conceive that common sense teaches
us to endeavour to develope a sense of freedom and of con-
sciousness of poitical existence, to make them, if nothing
more, efficient opponents of the aggrandisement of Rus-
sia. And as respects Turkey, we stand upon the .groand
of policy as well as of law, in endeavouring to maintain
the amicable character and the liberal relations between
that power and the people of the Principalities. I invite
Parliament to interpose to affirm that which has been
declared and that which has been announced. Now I
say we must not trifle with this question. For my own
part, I will never be a party to trifling with the reason-
able expectations of five millions of men ; neither do I
think that Parliament ought to be trifled with, in such
a way as would be the case if in the year 1856 the minis-
try, after thoroughly considering the case, are to make -
known to the house a certain definite course upon a vital
question of policy connected with the great warlike
struggle in which we have engaged, and then, without
any explanation or reason, they are to abandon their
own formal and publicly announced conclusions, and
march in exactly the opposite direction. Having had a
suspicion that something of the kind might be intended,
[ inquired the other evening of her Majesty's Govern•
nient whether they were about to present to us any
further papers on the subject ; and I was answered that
they were not. That being the case, and not being able
to obtain any satisfaction or any assurance that they
would persevere in a policy such as had been announced
to Parliament, I had no alternative but to give notice of
a motion in the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) The
question is now or never. Next week the conferences
will meet at Paris, and we shall have no cognisance of
what takes place at those conferences until after the lapse
of a few days, when we shall be told tbat all is over, that
the Principalities are not to be united, and that the sim-
ple word "not" is to be inserted in the declarations of
Count Walevi ski and Lord Clarendon. (Cheers.) It le
by the united judgment of England and France alone
that this question must be settled. If England shall un-
fortunately be opposed to the union of the Princi-
palities, France will be obliged to give way, however
much it may be against her will. The union of these
Principalities would thus be frustrated, in spite of the
most solemn promises, and Russia, now friendly to it,
would hereaf er avail herself of it, and by chiming in
with the bee of the people, lay a fora cation for her
power on the banks of the Danube, ar d the name of
Turkey would become odious. I car not conceive any
measure more conducive to create the ye .3, ied,ehiee ap-
prehended, or more suicidal in its nature, than the course
now proposed. If it were their d, sire again to embroil
the East—if they wished to pave the way for Rersaia and
augment her influence, they could not do it better than -
by abandoning their pledges and policy and joining in
with Austria. It is for that reason I entreat the house
to hold to its former policy, to make the Government
adhere to it, and rigidly exact from them the reason
why they were to abandon it. It might be a small
question with them. It was eclipsed by the ggantio
subject of the Indian government, and would have little
effect on their families or household at tome, or in their
public arrangements, no matter what was done. But
the day of reckoning was to come. France wag ready
to do her best. She was now what she was in 1856.
(Cheers) I see an hon. baronet (Sir E. B. Lytton)
shake his bead. (A laugh.) I know not if that hon.
baronet expressed the mind or spirit of France, and ear-
ta,inly I am not prepared to say that that shake was et,* d
in importance to that of Lord Burleigh. (A laugh ) I
have no hesitation in saying that France could not carry
the union of these Principalities in the face of Austria
and Turkey, if England deserted her. That wee the
question to be decided now, and they could only do it
by a perseverance in their policy and a redemp iin of
their pledges. That is the question which I now
earnestly submit to the House of Commons in the words
of my motion. (Cheers.)
The motion being put by the SPEAKER,
Mr. S. FITZGERALD felt he had an arduous task to
perform in answering the speech of the right hon. gentle-
tleinan who had just sat down. He had not only to contend
with one of the most eloquent speakers that ever addressed
the home, to answer a speech of more than an hour's dura-
tion, hat one whose position and authority on all subjects,
foreign and tionietio, must always be respected. He had
to contend, not only against these things, but to address
himself to a subject in reference to which hon. members
were not perfectly acquainted, or had not given it that at-
tention which its importance demanded. The speech of the
right hon. gentleman, he aimitted, manifested, from be-
'nlll.6ll7' to end, the most careful and attentive resesrA,
and he thus addressed the house from a great 'vantage
ground, calling on them to egree to his resolution oa the
ground of popular sympathy, and as supporting the ex-
pressed wish of an entire
ld,)nlyhpoeeoei:let,heerleiefiotreed,
forin tthheeiirr
sympa-
thy p u bli
ss
ae'annballya.ttHenetion in answering the right hon. gentleman,
and he could assure them that whatever opinions he ex-
pressed were those of sincere conviction. The right hon-
gentleman expressed a hope that be would not be met with
the trite answer that he was inter'', ring with matters re-
specting their foreign policy, which ought to be left to the
executive Government. He would not find fault with hint
on that account, but he could not sufficiently express his
astonishment that one who had been so long engaged tie
eunittiet of public affairs, who had filled high office,
and, as such, hail often given his consent to negotiatiowe
should now call on the House of Commons to pass a resc-
lotion not only unprecedented, but calculated to bring
that house and the country into a serious difficulty.
What was their position ? The right hon. gentlemen