§ Order for Committee (Supply) read.
§ MR. STAPLETONsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the organization of the Danubian Principalities, in as far as it was affected by the election of Alexander John Couza to be Hospodar of Wallachia, he having been previously elected Hospodar of Moldavia. It was well known to the House that these provinces stood in the relation of feudatories to the Ottoman Porte, and that by the treaty of Paris the Suzerain rights of the Porte and the rights of the Provinces were specially provided for. At the Paris Conferences a question arose as to whether these provinces should continue separate or be united in one homogeneous State. The representative of the French Emperor proposed the union, in which he was supported by the Earl of Clarendon. On the other hand, the Turkish Envoy, supported by Austria, was opposed to any such arrangement. It was admitted, however, that the interest of the provinces themselves should be mainly considered, and even Count Buol, the Austrian representative, admitted that 1289 at some future period they might with propriety be united. It was admitted that a constitution ought to be granted to the Principalities which should be adapted to the wants and the wishes of the country, and a Commission was appointed to ascertain what those wishes were. A Divan was also summoned in each Principality. The Divan of Wallachia, which was the larger province of the two, was, with three exceptions, in favour of the union, and though the first Divan of Moldavia was adverse, a second Divan, when the question came to be better understood, was unanimous in favour of the union. Then it was supposed by the people that the question was set at rest and that their wishes would be respected by the great powers. But a change came over the policy of England, and the line of policy followed by the Earl of Clarendon was departed from by Her Majesty's Ministers. Soon after a Motion was brought forward by the Member for the University of Oxford, (Mr. Gladstone) for an address to the Crown in favour of the union of the Principalities. That Motion was resisted by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on the ground that the people were not in favour of a union unless they were to be united under a foreign Prince. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) concurred in that view of the case. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also adopted the argument of the Under Secretary, and moreover repeatedly stated that there was the most complete identity in their views and policy between the Government of this country and that of France. The Motion was in consequence successfully resisted. The Conferences soon afterwards assembled in Paris, and a constitution was given to the Principalities which might well be called unexampled in political history. It might be described as duality in unity; for while there was to be a central governing commission, which was to sit at Fokschani on the frontier and dispose of questions that equally affected both Principalities, each State was to elect its own Divan and its own Hospodar. In the working out of this constitution the two Principalities had proceeded to elect their Hospodar, and M. Couza had been elected by both Divans and hailed by the enthusiatic voices of the people of both countries; thus showing the strong desire that existed in the minds of the people for unity. Under these circumstances he hoped the Government would give the House some explanation 1290 of the policy they proposed to follow; and he trusted it would not be that of thwarting the desires of the people of the Principalities—that they would not oppose their strong and repeatedly expressed desire for union. He knew it was argued by some persons that the question of union was a mere pretence, and that some ulterior object was behind it. To a certain extent that might be true. It was in the nature of a generous people to seek the highest development of freedom. But though they might aspire to something higher, they would not reject the good within their reach. He did not believe it would tend to the injury of Turkey to confer on them the highest development compatible with the maintenance of her suzerainty. The only terms on which Turkey could henceforth exist in Europe were the good government of her Christian subjects, and the free development of those provinces towards which she stood in the relation of suzerain. The stronger and more prosperous those frontier provinces of Turkey became, the more powerful would Turkey herself be to resist her real enemy. The Emperor of the French lately said that the interest of France lay wherever was the cause of justice and civilization. That was a grand sentiment, and worthy of an Emperor. He did not apprehend that any of the present generation would look upon the destruction of Turkey, but they ought not the less to be prepared for the evacuation of her Christian provinces, when that time might arrive. The organization of a state was not for a time, but for all time. The strength of these Provinces, as well as of the other feudatories of the Porte, would be our best guarantee against the aggrandizement of Russia by the dissolution of the Turkish empire whenever that event should occur.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he would not detain the House with more than a few observations, for he was quite sure that the House and the hon. Gentleman himself must feel that it was impossible for him, on the part of the Government, to enter into a lengthened consideration of this very important question. On a former occasion, when the question was before the House last year, it was his duty to state the views which Her Majesty's Government generally entertained with reference to the question of the Principalities. Since that time a Conference of the European Powers assembled at Paris, and day after day and week after week the attention of the most 1291 able diplomatists in Europe was directed to this question, and their labours resulted in what must be deemed a solemn act on the part of the European Powers. The hon. Gentleman had stated that in his opinion the election of M. Couza as hospodar of both the Principalities was not contrary to the letter or the spirit of the convention signed by the Conference of Paris. He (Mr. FitzGerald) would not venture to offer any opinion on that subject, but this at least he would say, that such an election as that was not contemplated by those who formed the Conference at Paris. Neither would he venture to enter into the question raised by the hon. Gentleman as to the intention with which this election had been carried out in the Principalities, or its probable results. But this at least was clear, that the Power which was most seriously interested in the election—namely, Turkey—had protested against the election, on the ground that it was contrary both to the letter and the spirit of the convention, and had invited those who with her were parties to the Conference at Paris to meet in Paris and consider the very serious state of affairs at present existing in the Principalities. The European Powers had accordingly agreed to meet in Paris to consider what was best to be done. The hon. Gentleman said that before the Conference met Her Majesty's Government ought to state what were the views entertained by them on the subject, and what was the course they intended to adopt; but he (Mr. FitzGerald) thought the House would admit that Her Majesty's Government would be wanting in respect to those European Powers that had been invited to assemble at Paris to consider what was best to be done under the difficult state of circumstances that had arisen if they were publicly, prematurely, and indiscreetly to state what were their views upon the subject. He thought, therefore, that, having thus shortly stated the grounds on which he asked the House not to enter into a consideration of this very important question, he should best fulfil his duty by declining to say anything more upon it.
§ MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he quite agreed that the British Government ought not to speak on the present occasion, but there was no reason why the House of Commons should decline doing so. What was the question before them? It was that of a people endeavouring to be a people; and were they, as a House of Commons, not to express their opinion upon a question like 1292 that? In his opinion it would be no indiscretion on the part of the House of Commons, to say they hoped the efforts of the Moldavians and Wallachians to become a nation, and to gain their independence, would be successful. For his own part, he participated very much in their wishes, and hoped that, far from being the slaves of the diplomacy of Europe, they would retain their own dignity and work out unaided their own independence.