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

causes: Most unfortunately 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 last summer. The sen-
timents of the Wallachian representatives were almost eu
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 a holesale exercise of intimida-
tion and force. Documents were quoted which I do 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 tbe 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 ad 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. I am sorry to
ray that Austria and Turkey were engaged in upholding
these elections, but still quashed they were, aid the
question was referred to the mass of those who were en-
titled to give their vote. That vote was given by tbe
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 t f
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, aud 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
tee 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
denounced 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 Sardis is follow. Provision is made in the
tee icy to refer to the judgment of the people the ques.
tion of their future organisation. The answer of the
eaple is returned with an unanimity almost unexampled
in history, That is the point to which we are now
come. Well, air, it may perhaps be said, that besi les
the provision that the people of Moldavia and Wallachia
should be consulted, it was also provided that a com-
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 arrangement. 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 Butler's with regard to the working of
representative institutions in the colonies, which was so
true and so 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, eathered through their
representatives, was to prevail or not must be decided
in the recesses of your Colonial-office. That was the
doctrine, and the saying of Mr. Buller 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 that it will not be disputed that the
union of the Principalities is desired by the people of
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 a3eume that proposition to be
proved, and proceed to consider the rest of the case.
There is one objctien, if this motion is opposed, which
may be taken. It may be said, and truly, that the people
of the Principali:ies have express, d their desire for the
union, and something more. It is perfectly true that the
divans have addressed themselves to all the points which
appeared to them material fur a thorough settlement of
their political organisation. In the first place, they have
asked for a formal recognition by the powers of Europa
of what they call expressly their autonomy, that is, their
entire independence in regard tb internal legislation.
That is admitted and recognised in the treaty of Paris
when it is stated that they are to have an independeir
national administration. The second point to which they
have addressed themselves, and of which they make
prayer, is the neutrality of their tcrritery. Well, I do not
know that the neutrality of their territory is expressly
indicated in the treaty of Paris, but it 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 had been made. Another
of the five points was that the Principalities should be
governed by representative institutions. So 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. Bat as regards the
other four points, it appears to me that they nave 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 Franca and England, which is
all but sanctioned by the most au:heintatiee 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 bee 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 my belief that it is a
good and safe measure, and not only that, but that there
is no other measure that is g o i and safe under the cir-
cumstances in which you stand. In the first place I
think it is net denied that for the Principalities them-
selves union is the best measure possible. (Hear, hear.)
Imagine the condition of the people of those two territo,
ries. On one aide, Turkey ; on another, Russia ; and
on the third, Austria ; themselves isolated as a people,
desiring freedom, hitherto made the sport of foreign in-
trigu,e, constantly seeing themselves invaded by foreign
armies, constantly oppressed I y 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 ? Are we riot speaking in a Parlia-
ment which has found strength in this land by uniting
with others ? Wt. at was the old relation of Sco land
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 so when England and Scotland were disunited.
Scotland was the ally of France and the prevailing na-
tional Beet inept s f Scotland was much more French than
English. By unhing these two countries you did away
with that dissension, and added liberty, power, and hap-
piness to the population of the United Kingdom. We
have acted on the same principleprinciple in our own time,
Viiat did wedo with the two Caraclas ? We bid the
two Canadae seek itreng,h in union, and they have
found it. And unless I am mush mistaken we have
offered to Australia, toe, that if the provinces choose to
form an unit n among themselves, in an Act of Parlia-
ment are to be found provisions by which that union
may he effected. If it were lit ely to be disputed that
the unisn of the two principalities is the natural and ne-
cessary means of givitg d e, 1, pment to their resources,
of realising to them the airs cf national expenditure, of
strengthening the organisation of their Govemment, and
diminishing itsexpenditure—by theattainment, in short,
of every material obj ct that reasonable men could de
sire, I would then open up a more detailed argument
en the subject. But I assume fur the present that the
union of the Principalities is undoubtedly to be de-
sired as far as the welfare of the people of those pro•
vinces is concerned. If that be so, I beseech the
house to consider well before you determine that the
vote of this country is to be governed by considerations
°the, than those of the welfare of the people. (Hear.)
It is a dangerous and a slippery course upon which
you embark ween you take your stand in the face of four
or five mill toes of men, and tell them that God Almighty
has sent them into the wor:d not to prosecute their own
happiness and welfare by every lawful and reasonable •
means that are in their power, not to be made victims in,

all that tenches their publio and private existence for the
purpose of serving other views extraneous to their inte-
rest—views that an overpowering force is detercoieel to
carry into effect. (Haar.) Well I as•ume that the
union of the Principalities is good f .r the Principalities
themselves. Then for whom is it not good ? lam not
prepared to say that it is good for Austria or Russie. I
cannot undertake to say teat 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
source of danger and uneasiness to Europe. If you do
unite them, whether the eximple 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, I am 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
leaet, 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 c egnisance of that policy on
the past 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 think 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 here 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 is to be maintained as a
barrier against Russian aggrandisement. I recognise 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 neon Talks'? I Sisert
that it has not. But that is a proposition of great import-
atce, because there are certain views of governing men
upon which you might come to an opposite conclusion.
There are those who think that 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
hold 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
the best way to secure the institutions of a country is
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-
paltiels• 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 I;am 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. AS
I read in the French journals, 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, bat, 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 ind and mere important one is that the Prin-
cipalities shall not become the property of other govern-
(Dents. It is not Turkey that can prevent the Principali-
ties being free. The union of the Principalities is not
unfavourable to Torkey ; it is not unfavourable to the
connexion with Turkey understood in the manner in
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 as 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 po:itical existence, to make them, if nothing
more, efficient opponents of the aggrandisement of Rus-
sia. And as respects Turkey, we stand upon the ground
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 hosier) 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 bad a
suspicion that something of the kind might be intended,
I inquired the other evening of her Majesty's Govern•
ment whether they were about to present to us any
further papers on tke 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 bad 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
wil 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 that all is over, that
the Principahties are not to be united, and that the sim-
ple word "not" is to be inserted in the declarations of
Count Wales ski and Lord Clarendon. (Cheers.) It in
by the united judgment of England and France alone
that this question must be settled. If England shall un-
fortunately he 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 spits of the
roost solemn promises, and Russia, now friendly to it,
would hereaf er avail herself of it, and by cle!m;ng in
with the wishes of the people, lay a fotn ',ikon for her
power on the banks of the Danube, as d the name of
Turkey would become odious, I mint conceive any
measure more conducive to create the see ey mischief ap-
prehended, or more suicidal in its ns tare, than the course
now proposed. If it were their di sire again to embroil
the East—if they wished to pave the way for Russia and
augiutn. 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 en'reat 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 gigantic
subject of the Indian government, and would have little
effect on their families or household at borne, or in their
public arrangements, no matter what was done. But
the day of reckoning was to come. France wall ready
to do her beet. She was now what she was in 1856.
(Cheers ) I see an hon. baronet (Sir E. B. Lytton)
shake his head. (A. laugh.) I know not if that hon.
baronet expressed the mind or spirit of France, and cer-
tainly I am not prepared to say that that shake was equil
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 -Austiia
and Turkey, if England deserted her. That eves the
question to be decided now, and they could only do it
by a persevenince in their policy and a redemp ii le of
their pledges. That is the question which I now
earnest'y 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 bad an arduous task to
perform in answering the speech of the right hon. gentle-
tleman who had just sat down. He had not only to contend
with one of the most eloquent speakers that ever addressed
ihe house' to answer a speech of more than an hour's dura-
tion, bat one whose position and authority on all subjects,
foreign and domestic, 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 detnauded. The speech of the
right hon. gentleman, he a knitted, manifested, from be-
'lrwin, to end, the most careful and attentive research,
and ho thus addressed the house from a great 'vantage
ground, calling on them to agree to his resolution on the
,round of popular sympathy, and as supporting the ex-
pressed wish of an entire people, elicited in their public
assembly. He could only hope, therefore, for their sympa-
thy and attention 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 he would not be met with
the trite answer that he was intern ring with matters re-
specting their foreign policy, which ought to be left to the
executive Government. He would not find fault with Mite
on that account, but he could not sufficiently express his
astonishment that one who had been so long engaged is
the conduct of public affairs, who had filled high opece,
and, as such, bad often given his consent to negotiation'',
%tiouid now call on the House of Commons to pass a resat).
lotion not only unprecedented, but calculated to bring
that house and the country into a serious diffieulty.
What was their position ? The right hon. gentleman