CHAPTER VI.

LORD SALISBURY'S RECORD.

ON May 4, 1858-Lord Derby being Prime Minister and Mr. Disraeli leader of the House of Commons-Mr. Gladstone initiated a great debate on the union of the two Principalitiesthen under Turkish rule-which now constitute the kingdom of Roumania. The question of their union came before the Congress of Paris in 1856, and the Plenipotentiaries of France and England strongly supported it, and had influence enough to get their policy thus recorded in the twenty-eighth Article of the Treaty of Paris:

His Majesty the Sultan promises to convoke immediately in each of the two Provinces a divan ad hoc, composed in such a manner as to represent most closely the interests of all classes of society. These divans shall be called upon to express the wishes of the people in regard to the definite organisation of the Principalities.

Austria and Turkey-Arcades ambo as foes of freedom-opposed the union; and, when an appeal was made to the people of Moldavia, stifled the popular will by the grossest intimida

Union of Danubian Principalities

59

tion. England urged the quashing of the elections and a fresh appeal to the people, and, of course, Austria and Turkey opposed, but in vain. In the second election the people of both Principalities voted unanimously in favour of the union. Still Austria and Turkey opposed, and there was thus a second Congress of Paris to adjudicate upon the matter. While the Congress was sitting Mr. Gladstone moved in the House of Commons a resolution in favour of the union. His most eloquent speech is well worth reading now for its far-seeing statesmanship. Suggesting that the Mohammedan Power in Europe could not be permanently maintained,' he advised the endowment of its Christian population with practical self-government under the protection of the Powers, yet leaving them under the rule of the Porte, and thus maintaining as long as possible the territorial integrity of Turkey,' to prevent a scramble, possibly leading to a great war, on the part of ambitious neighbours. He was not surprised that Austria should join Turkey in opposing the union of the Danubian Principalities.

I will not undertake to say that it is convenient to Austria to have freedom in conjunction with prosperity close by her threshold; but that is her fault, not mine.

Mr. Gladstone was supported, in a generous and powerful speech, by Lord John Russell, and fiercely opposed by the Government and, in a

60

Lord Salisbury's First Speech

violent speech, by Lord Palmerston, who affirmed that the Principalities did not wish for union. It was all a factitious excitement got up for sinister purposes by foreign agency.' Carry out Mr. Gladstone's policy, and 'Russia would in a moment overspread' Roumania, which would thus become a scene of confusion and intrigue, and, like Poland, be absorbed by Russia, or divided between her and Austria.' And, above all, Mr. Gladstone's policy would be fatal to 'the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire.' Three years previously Lord Palmerston said that his own policy was 'to emancipate the Principalities from foreign interference, and to tie them more closely to the Sultan.'

The debate was remarkable, not only for the eloquence of the veteran orators of the House, but for a brilliant speech in support of Mr. Gladstone by a young Member on the Conservative benches.

The House must consider maturely (he said) what would be the fate of those Principalities if the motion of his Right Honourable friend should be rejected. . . . The probability was that if the strong assistance of Europe were given in favour of the claims of Turkey, the Principalities would be handed over for the present to Turkey, the most oppressive and rapacious of all governments. As long as Turkey lasted they would be subjected to her rule; and when Turkey fell, as she ultimately must do, they would become a prey to some other Powers who would divide her remains between them. He trusted that the House of Commons would show themselves on this occasion to be

on the Eastern Question

61

the supporters of freedom. They had made many efforts and had talked a great deal about propagating the principles which they professed, and of spreading the institutions which they revered, in other countries. . . . There was now an opportunity, which might never recur, of supporting those principles which we revered, of establishing those institutions to which we owed our own happiness, and of securing the freedom and welfare of thousands of our fellow-creatures. That opportunity had been afforded in consequence of a pledge given by ourselves, and if it should be neglected and thrown away the responsibility would fall upon us, and all would feel that it had been lost by our betrayal and our falsehood.

The name of the young orator was Lord Robert Cecil, now Marquis of Salisbury. The speech made a great impression on the House, and was deeply resented by Mr. Disraeli, who devoted a considerable part of his own speech to the task of neutralising that impression. following extract from Mr. Disraeli's speech shows how angry he was at this display of independence by one of his own party :

The

If the views expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Stamford are sound, then you are justified in supporting the Address to the Crown. If, indeed, the fall of Turkey is to be looked on as a realised fact, ... then you would be justified in ratifying the sentiments of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford. But, as I believe the opinions of the noble Lord are raw and crude opinions, as I believe they are not the opinions of any one who has sufficiently thought on the subject on which he has spoken with so much authority, I must decline to follow his example. But that such

opinions should be in any degree sanctioned by the right hon. gentleman the Member for the University (Mr. Gladstone) is to me matter of deep astonishment.

It was a thoroughly pro-Turkish and antiRussian speech, ridiculing the idea of raising up in the Danubian Principalities a fantastic kingdom, and of establishing in those countries what indeed would be but the phantom of independence.' By the coalition of Palmerstonians and Mr. Disraeli's followers, Mr. Gladstone's motion was defeated by a majority of 292 against 114. The bugbear of 'a European war' was then also raised by Lord Palmerston and Mr. Disraeli to frighten a timorous Parliament from fulfilling a national pledge and discharging a national duty. Read in the light of events, how prescient and statesmanlike are the speeches of Mr. Gladstone, Lord John Russell, and Lord Robert Cecil! And what political rubbish are the speeches of Lord Palmerston and Mr. Disraeli ! But the vote of the House of Commons was a triumph for Austria and Turkey-on paper. The Congress of Paris, under the influence of the British Government, riveted the yoke of the Sultan on the necks of the people of Roumania. Nevertheless, the speeches of the champions of freedom in Parliament encouraged the Roumanians to take their destiny into their own hands, and by the device of electing the same Prince for both Principalities they defeated the scheme of selfish statesmen and cemented their