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

THE SUN,

R The government of England professed loudly on behalf of
the principles of freedom, but was very weak in support of.
them. New it appeared to him that they had at present
a rare opportunity of establishing-a liberal government-in-
Wallachia, which might never again occur, but Wens said
by his right hon. friend the Un ter-Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs that this house should not interfere. NoW
what did that mean ? He .(Mr. Roebuck) wanted to know
why / The House of Commons—the government of Eng-
land were about to see their representative in Patis
again in the Congress of Europ: an Powers, and to see him
supported in their name on behalf of England, and they
were told they were not to express their opinion, and
tell the other assembled Powerslhow they wished him to
act. Now it appeared to him that it was the duty of the
House of Commons to tell those who represented England
how they ought to act, and what the house wished them
to do—what principles they ought to advise and advocate,
and how- they ought to exert their influence. And he
would now tell the House of Commons to exert their in-
fluence, and to say to the representatives of European
Po'wers that England was about to support a free people in
an effort to govern themselves. (Hear, and cheers.) Upon
what occat., were the European Powers to meet, andlupon
what matt ? It appeared that, for some years past, the
Emperor of Russia chose to make war upon Turkey, and
in so doing the first thing he did was to transgress certain
limits and to invade certain Principalities on the borders
of the Danube, and in so doing the people of England felt
that he broke through the rules, and England declared war
against him. But in so doing what did England then do?
She said that the Emperor of Russia should not dismember
Turkey, and so long as the Principalities were connected
with Turkey they thereby resisted Russia. But the Prin-
cipalities, as connected with Turkey were connected in a
very peculiar way. They were connected with it! by a
treaty, which provided that, on theirunion to Turkey, they
should maiatain their own independence. By that treaty
Russia was confined within her dominions, Austria within
hen's, and Turkey within her's; and then came the Mol-
davian people, and they said, " We are a people of the
Western world, and we ask you, the European Powers, to
maintain our undeniable rights." (Hear.) That was all
that they said ; and on that account they were supported
by France, on the one side, who said those people are a
people who should have a free government. (Hear.) This
was a free people, deriving their origin from a peculiar
source -namely, from the old Roman empire, whose laws
and order they long observed. They maintained their in-
dependence and the integrity of their dominions through-
out ages of tyranny and misrule. Eventually they sub-
mitted to the Turkish empire, which was then in the
ascendant, iu accordance with a contract which was still in
existence. They never submitted themselves by conquest
to Turkey ; but by this free and independent contract
They never lost sight gf their Western origin. They spoke
a language nearly Roman—they had a religion of the
Eastern Empire of Rome—they had the institutions of
the Roman Empire—and to the present time they had
maintained their individual existence as a Western and an
independent people. When the Russian vv.r concluded,
these people applied to the European powers to be de-
fended, as a Western people, against the encroachments of
Turkey on their individual and political liberties. They
, asked first for their independence as a people, and in order
to insure that they thought they ought to have a king se-
lected from some one of the monarchies of Europe. They
were doing just what the Italian republics did. They
could not elect a person from amongs themselves to govern
them, and they wished a foreign prince for the purpose.
They demanded respresentative institutions, and wished
to be governed according to the policy of Europe. But it
was sail that this could not bedone, and why? Because
it would throw the provinces into the arms of Russia !
But he wanted to know if a people, numbering five mil-
lions, ruled by a king who had been chosen by themselves,
would net rather create a barrier against Russia— a barrier
grester than we could create by annexing them either. to
Austria or Turkey. They were a people who had the
means of prosperity within themselves; their country was
accessible b sea to England ; and united to this country
by ties of commerce, they would oppose an effectual bar-
rier to the designs of Russia on Turkey, The case of these
provinces was such as ought to arouse the feelings of every
man ; an. i f England wished to take part in the business of
Continental Europe in a way that she should, as expressive
of her own dignity, and conducive to the interests and
happiness of mankind ; she could only do so by aiding these
people to become free.
Mr. DUFF said the " sick man," to whom the Emperor
of Russia referred, was now assuredly dying, and the duty
of England was to act the part of the family solicitor and
the family physician, and endeavour to secure his rich in-
heritance to his rightful heirs—the Christian population
subject to his role, and in doing that they would only be
following the natural course of events, What they ought
to do was to place Wallachia and Moldavia in the position
of Servia, and in the fullness of time they would have to
do the same for Balgaria and the rest of the Turkish
provinces.

Lord PALMERSTON.—Sir, I never heard a debate in
which, if I may be permitted to say AO, those who have
taken a part seemed to understand so little of the
facts of the case. From what has passed • this evening it
might be supposed that the question at issue was whet er
these Principalities were to be subjected to the tyrannical
and oppressive government of a Turkish pacha, or whether
they *ere to have self-government and be ruled by chiefs
belonging to themselves, and have representative govern-
ment. That seems to be the alternative which the hon.
and learned member for Sheffield appeared to consider to
be the matter at issue; and the hon. and learned member
for Cork (Sergeant Deasy) seemed to think that the ques-
tion was, whether we should comply with the wishes of the
Danubian Principalities, by placing them in the same rela-
tion to Turkey in which Egypt stands, or whether we
should make them in A greater and more strict degree sub-
ject to Turkey. But none of these questions are really the
questions at issue. The real question at issue is, that
which has been so well stated by the Under-Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, viz., whether we should take a
course which would infallibly be the first step towards the
separation of those two states from the Turkish empire,
and thus commence the dismemberment of that empire.
The right hon. gentleman the member for Oxford has en-
deavoured to refine and draw a distinction between a pro-
vince and a country ruled by a sovereign, If I understand
his argument it was that, inasmuch as these provinces were
only under the suz,rainte of Turkey, that meant nothing
at all, and that they were free and independent, though
forming a portion of the Turkish empire. The hon. and
learned member for Cork read a treaty, by which it ap-
peared that in 1460 these provinces acknowledged the
Sultan should have supremacy over the sovereign of their
country that seems to be something like " sovereignty,"
and that sovereignty was a part of the dominions of the
supreme authority. If these provinces were not a part, of
the Turkish empire, how came my right hon. friend the
member for Oxford to be a party to a war which would
only stand justified upon the ground that they were a part
of the Turkish empire ? Can it be supposed that the Go-
vernment of that day would have called upon England ?
Can it be supposed that the Emperor of the French
would hove called upon France, and that the other
Powers of Europe would, have united to protect
the population of Moldavia and Wallachia from
Russian aggression, if these provinces had been a separate
and independent ate ? Much as we might all have re-
gretted the invasion of their territory, and the annihilation
of their rights, I do not think that the nations of Europe
would have taken up arms and made that sacrifice of
blood and treasure which they did make for the purpose
of saving these provinces from the aggression of Russia.
It was because of an encroachment upon the territories and
independence of Turkey, the integrity of which was con-
sidered essential to the balance of power in Ear oee,—it
was on that ground, and on that ground alone, that the
Government of that day called on the people of England
to take up arms, and to resist that invasion. Well then,
I say that, if we look to the ancient history of these pro-
vinces, I believe I may say that from the time they ceased
to be a part of the Roman Empire down to the present
period they always have been two separate states ; and,
therefore, that which we are now called upon to sanction
is something totally different from anything which has ever
existed before in regard to these Principalities. But has
their connexion with Turkey been a state of oppression ?
On the contrary, if these two nations have suffered, it has
been from foreign aggression, from military occupation—
first by Russia and then by Austria, though for a different
purpose and with different views. It is the occupation of
these provinces by foreign troops which has been the cause
of grievance and complaint, suffering and impoverishment,
and not their relations to the Tnrkish empire. The con-
dition of their connexion with Turkey was that the should
be self-governed, that there should be no Turkish troops
within their limits, that they should be ruled by native
chiefs, and have such an internal organisation as they
thought fit. Secondly, it was agreed that they should ac-
knowledge supremacy on the part of the Sultan, make a
payment of tribute, and render military assistance in case
of foreign aggression. I say, therefore, sir, that it is a
fallacy to argue that what we are now called upon to de-
cide is whether these nations should or should not be free.
Free they are, free they have been, and free we intend
them to be. The question is, not whether their internal
freedom shall be taken from them, and they shall be sub-
jected to the tyranny of a Turkish paella. The ques-
•tion is, What shall be the conditions of that free.
dom which the Towers of Europe are pledged by the
treaty of Paris to secure to them ? It is said that we are
called upon by the national honour and by national en-
gagements to yield to the motion of my right hon. friend
the member for Oxford University. I deny that the
Treaty of Paris made any engagement of that sort. In the
conferenc.s which took place opinions were expressed by
the French and by the English Plenipotentiaries that such
an arrangement might be desirable; but no decision was
come, and further deliberations were arranged to take
place. The question which was to be referred, under the
anicle of the Treaty of Paris, was not simply the question
of union or of separation, but a question of internal orga-
nisation. It was a misrepresentation, when we were re-
ferred to the Reglement Organique as an expression of the
feelings of the people in foreshadowing and suggesting the
union of the two provinces. Who were its authors ? It
was a Russian document. (Hear, hear.) If it anticipated
a union of the two provinces it was a Russian view of the
matter, and not a Moldavian, Wallachian, or Turkish.
It is quite true that this question of union was one of the
matters which the Divans were not precluded from con-
sidering as a part of their organisation. We are told that
faith has been broken with these peeple—that the condi-
tions of the treaty of Paris have not been fulfilled. Why,
they have been fulfilled ! (Hear, hear.) Divans for the
purpose--Divan ad hoc as they were called—were con-
voked. It is said that they were elected with great regu-
larity, and it is said that their proceedings were well con-
edenecdtienclgie
obfuat
the house may well imagine the electoral pro-
t o agitated
their
debates b y foreign
peoplel haaugvni
etna
he
teeodar
art
heard
oatrh
caeo
particularus yn
us t ewm oi
of
hpe luedrcopt
oi one neo.,t andeAne.
inp
ednlearnedsubtleltis memberwelintrigues.l
tairely tally with' the letter which has been read by the hon.
ne e
thatfeet
;nsoefwtor Cork. It is said that there were
cause of these excitements werewhaitchlieypre foreignv a i
agencyl
prevailed
el tsubtle,
regardw
a s b
theut
to
this question of union and separation. The Divans did
because the Moldavian un-
doubtedly, pet; tie fora union, not in the first instance,
union.
DAivda,nanwtaHsgeknwoawentetkoenbeofa
about its business, and be
the question of clivrreergseuitao.
which were pare denied ; that Divan was -sent
irregula-
rities which could not
another was elected under influ-
encess,union i
the trodWerhan2t
remount, and it joined the other in
voting for union.
• stated byWhy a union which, as
S. Fitzgerald) would place the
for Foreign Affairs (Mr.
prince. It was on that conditioe provinces under a foreign
and not under any other cireumnstaant they were for a union,
they be ? For obvious reeve ces: And why should
DRMoldavia
sub-
mit to Wallachia, not Wallachiawould never to Moldavia
either of them submit No be ruled b • • Nor would
y a prince sent by the
Sultan. They want of >zeign prince, and who
foreign prince be ? Why, they are all of the Givreeeeti trhat
gion, and would they take a Catholic ? I doubt h theli-
w e er a
Catholic prince would be permitted by the five powers to
rule over the country. Russia woul 1 raise objections to
placing any but a Greek prince rn that throne, and where
will they find the Greek prince? lii the Russian royal
family, to be sure. (Hear;hear.) Lit the house be assured
that union under a foreign prince means union under a
prints of the Russian family. How is a Catholic prince to

LONDON,

r maintain himself against all the Greek influences whioh
• will be brought to bear upon him F Why, by leaning-- for
support on that power which Would sway those Greek in-
--efluences. But,-whethee the-prince were Catholic or Greek,
he would be equally obliged to become a vassal of Russia,
in order to'secure the gcod wiil of the Greeks. I say, there-
fore, that the appointment of a foreign prince would be
necessarily the first step towards a separation. Would any
prince, fit to govern a country of four or five millions,
long submit to be the vassal of the Sultan ? No. He would
aspire to independence, and independence he would soon
obtain. Here, then, would be a small country of four or
five million people, surrounded by Russia, Austria, and
Turkey, with large populations. How weld that little
State maintain its independence? It would necessarily be-
come subservient either to one or to the other, or follow the
fate of Poland. Don't tell sue that such a State could be any
barrier against Russia. To say that a country with four or
million of people would be a military barrier against co-
lossal Russia is an absurdity. Thus the end of their foreign
princes would be that they would establish a scene of in-
trigue between Austria and Russia detrimental to the peace
and well-being of the country, or follow the fate of Poland,
and be absorbed by Russia, or divided between Russia and
Austria. Would such a result benefit the people of Wal-
lachia and Moldavia. Far from it. It is a short-sighted
policy even towards the Wallachians and btoldavians
themselves, to wish for that which the right hon. gentle-
man urges upon the Government to support and to assist
in establishing. But we are told that we ought not to
deny them representative institntious. Why, by the
Organic Statutes they ought to have them, but Russia pre-
vented them from meeting, or so arranged that the meet-
ings were merely sham. The Congress of Paris recorded its
opinion that they should have representative assemblies,
and it was to ascertain their views and wishes that these
Divans were held ; but these unhappy Divans, carried
away by the agitation and intrigues of those who bad other
interests to serve, refuse to go into all their real points,
and confined themselves to the unattainable object, as I
will call it, the separation from Turkey under the rule of a
foreign sovereign. I say, therefore, it is not for the inte-
rest of the Principalities themselves, or in accordance with
the engagement of the treaty of Paris, that the address
which the right hon. gentleman proposes should be acceded
to. We are dealing with this matter as if we were met in
congress at Vienna in 181.5, when the map of Europe was
spread out, to be divided according to the wishes of the
parties immediately concerned. But it should be remem-
bered that we made waragainst Russia for the maintenance
and integrity of the Turkish empire We concluded the
treaty of Paris for that purpose, and now we are called
upon, as the result of that successful war waged to main-
tain the independence of Turkey, and in accordance with
that treaty, agreed to for the same purpose, to take a step
which the Turkish Government, and which I should hope
,every reasonable person would think would be the first '
step towards the dismemberment of the Turkish empire.
Such a course of proceeding would, in my opinion, be tan-
tamount to stultifying ourselves, and would be in opposi-
tion to the great interests of the country. I hope, therefore,
the house will not be led away by the eloquence of the
right hon. gentleman, and accede to the motion, which
is adverse to the fundamental policy of the country; ad-
verse to the engagements of the country, as entered into
by the Treaty of Paris ; which cannot be of advan-
tage to the inhabitants of the Principalities them-
selves; which may lead to European dissension, if
not to European war; which can be of no benefit to
the Principalities, as they would have the same advan-
tages of trade, commerce, military arrangements, and
laws, separate as if united. While separate they would
continue to have the additional security which their con-
nexion with Turkey would give them ; whereas, if they
were left amiddespoticand military states, their fate would
be sealed, their representative assemblies would be quashed,
neighbouring military and arbitrary powers would come
down upon them, and they would become the tool of
Russia, or be partitioned, like Poland, between Austria
and Russia. (Cheers.)
Lord J, RUSSELL—Sir, the Under-Secretary of State
for Foreign Affairs asks us how it is that the house should
be called upon to interfere in this matter of the Danubian
Principalities, and has found fault with my.right hon.
friend the member for Oxford University as if he were pro-
posing that the house should dictate to the powers of Eu-
rope in conference assembled. To the first of these clues.
Lions I answer that here is a question to which the good
faith of England is pledged—(hear, hear)—and I ask, can
it be a matter of indifference to the House of Commons
that the good faith of England should under any circum-
stances be called in question ? I hold that whether our
character for good faith stands high or is impaired is a
matter that the House of Commons must necessarily feel
some interest in ; it is not one that they can afford to pass
by as if it did not concern them. (Hear, hear.) But with
regard to the hon. gentleman's second question, I should
say that my right hon. friend (as I understand his motion)
does not propose to say what the powers of Europe should
give as their opinions in the conferences of Paris, but merely
says what in the opinion of the House of Commons should
be the language of our plenipotentiary. (Hear, hear.) It
is not my right hon. friend's wish to say what should be
the language of the other powers of Europe. Bat if we
are informed correctly, I believe I am right in saying that
the language of Great Britain in these conferences has not
been confined to expressing her own views, but has been
used to influence other powers. (Hear.) Coming, however,
to the question itself. I look upon it as one of great magni-
tude, and as one that mnst cause considerable anxiety,
(Hear.) I agree with the Under Secretary of State, that we
ought not to set up any power in the Principalities that
should be in any way a rival to that power whose integrity
and independence we are bound by the treaty, in common
with the other powers to that treaty, to maintain. We are
bound in good faith not only &hotly to protect the inte-
grity of which we guaranteed, and for the sake of which
we went to war with Russia, but we.should not make any
arrangement by which that integrity would be impaired
and the independence of that power diminished. So far,
I agree with the hon. gentleman. But let us see what the
condition of the Principalities is, and what is that we have
undertaken. In the 15th century certain stipulations were
made between the Sultan and the rulers of these Principa-
lities, by which a certain tribute was to be paid to the
Sultan, but in which the largest powers of self-govern-
ment were reserved to the rulers of these Principalities—
porters extending even to the making of treaties and to
the making of war. These regulations, it is true, were not
very strictly observed; .the Sultan frequently violated
them, and Russia found an opportunity during the reign
of Catherine of interfering, and of asserting a power of in-
terference and a power of meddling with that portion of
the Turkish empire by treaties she made after successful
ware. Those powers of interference had been carried so
far by various treaties, that at length there was hardly any
transaction in any part of the internal government of the
Principalities with which Russia did not claim the rightof
interfering. That being the case, when the war between
Russia and France and Great Britain broke out, those
Principalities, according to their organic statutes, had
complete power of self-government. They could make their
own laws as to religion, their own laws for regulating
commerce and trade, and their own laws respecting the
administration of justice. In short their whole internal
government, so far as the Porte was concerned, was inde-
pendent. But the interference of Russia, as I have said,
was frequently employed in intriguing with respect to the
internal affairs of those provinces, and againat the influence
of the Porte. Well, sir, when we had settled what should
be the terms of peace, if the first object was' that Russia
should no longer have the power of control rand perpetual
interference which she had formerly exercised, the ques-
tion naturally arose what was to be the state of the Princi-
palities themselves. That was a question of great difficulty,
because, when the powers of Europe were ready to place
themselves in the position in which Russia bad previously
' stood, so far as guaranteeing the privileges of these Princip-
alities as against Turkey, it led to a discussion of what those
privileges should be, and besides being the duty, it was the
interest of the great powers to make those privileges as safe
with regard to their internal position and their internal
peace, in order to prevent the necessity of the interference
of any other powers, as in their wisdom they could do.
Those powers, especially England and France, might have•
taken one of two courses. They might have said we will
consider what is best for the Principalities—we will re-
view this organic statute which contains many excellent
provisions, and we will guarantee the statute so revised
and altered—leaving the Principalities with all the privi-
leges they have hitherto enjoyed, and with such improve-
ments as they may make. No doubt the Principalities
would have submitted to that arrangement if it had really
been one that would have contributed to their happiness
and to the safety of their internal organisation. Or we
might have taken another course—we might have said we
will consult the people of the Principalities themselves—
we will go to the people of Wallachia and Moldavia and
ask them to elect representatives—let them say what they
will have, and then grant their wishes so far as they ac-
cord with the treaty we have concluded. Neither of these
courses did we take. Bat we took a third course the most
unwise and irritating that could by any possibility have
been adopted. We assembled the Divan—the representa-
tives of the Principalities—and when they had deliberated
and expressed their feelings, and agreed almost unani-
mously what their wishes were—then you turn round upon
them and say you are a disorderly set—you don'tknow what
yon are about—you have been acted upon by external and
by private influences—you have acted • under excitement
and in ignorance of your own interests, and therefore we
will cast to the winds all that you propose and entirely
neglect your wishes and requests, Now, that appears to me
to be the most unwise course that could have been taken.
(Hear.) There has been a great deal of talk hers--my right
hon. friend, my noble friend, and every member who has
spoken in this debate, has talked about the power and in-
fluence which Russia will have if these Principalities are
united as they desire. Why, sir, it seems to me that we
have paved the way for Russia—we have opened the road
for her. Last year I stated that it was quite obvious that
without your interference the influence of Russia in the
Principalities was secured. For if you set up a prince
over Moldavia he would naturally look to Russia to increase
his power by uniting the two provinces. He would know
that the other great powers could not forward his views.
He would be dissatisfied, and the whole of the inhabi-
tants of the province would become discontented be-
cause Great Britain and France had refused their
desires, and they would turn to Russia as the only power
youthat
havecould
oa ssit them
contrived
s it
attaining
tn
that
whether
her theiryo object. er ea t S
u. t
or So ha t
refuset
the wishes of the Principalities, you increase the influence
of Russia. The only way, as it appears to me, to get
rent of this dilemma is the course proposed by my right
hon. friend. (Hear, hear.) The Under-Secretary for Fo-
reign Affairs tells ua (and he road a paper to the house
upon the subject which I bad never heard of before) that
Wallachia will not hear of this union unless she has a fo-
reign prince to rule over her. Is that to be understood as
the formal declaration of the two provinces ? Have they
come to any formal resolution to that effect ? And if so,
what has been said to them ? Have we no commissioner
there? believe that we have employed there one of the
ablest men in our whole diplomacy. Have you said to
them, will you take the union without the foreign prince,
or will you accept a prince from some part of the Turkith
empire ? Has that question ever been put to them ? Have
they ever been asked, and if so, have they ever re-
fused? For unless they have it is most unfair fora Secre-
tary of State to come down here and say that if we grant
four-fifths of their demand they will not be content unless
we grant the other fifth. That appears to me to be a pro-
posal that might be made. I believe it is a proposal they
would accept—viz., to have a union of the Principalities,
but with some person to rule over them not connected
with either of the great Powers of Europe—one that should
not be a Prussian prince or a member of any of the great
families of Europe, but one who is acquainted with their
habits, manners, and customs. I think the hon. gentle-
man said they would not like to have a prince who would
be liable to be deposed, and it is no doubt the constant de-
Position of their hospodars that has been the great cause
of the discord and difficulties of there Principalities. The
Sultan reserved to himself the right of deposing, and there