States, except to make the best possible terms with the victorious followers of the Crescent. Each Principality, therefore, concluded separate conventions with the Sublime Porte, by means of which they aimed at domestic independence in return for the payment of tribute and military service. These conventions or capitulations were not infrequently violated by the Turks as well as by the Roumanian Hospodars or Princes. Though the rulers of Bucharest and Jassy were appointed and dismissed at the pleasure of the Grand Seignior, the very existence of the Principalities was due solely to the provisions of the treaties above mentioned, by virtue of which they escaped incorporation in the Ottoman Empire; nor were the nobility of Moldavia and Wallachia forced to follow the example of their equals in Bosnia and Herzegovina in embracing Islam, in order to maintain their power over the Christian population. Still the Principalities of the Danube did not entirely escape the ruin and misery which befell Bulgaria and Roumelia; but, since the forms and outward appearance of administrative independence remained, it was yet possible that the Roumanian patriot might develop his country socially and politically without threatening the immediate interests of the Turkish Empire south of the Danube.

Chief amongst the difficulties which beset the regeneration of Roumania was the rule of the Phanariotes,[5] to whom the Porte had practically handed over the territories of the Lower Danube. The dignity of Hospodar[6] was confined to members of the great Phanariot families, who oppressed and misruled the whole country, whilst the Greek nobles in their train not only monopolised all offices and dignities, but even poisoned the national spirit by their corrupt system. Even to-day Roumania suffers from the after-effects of Levantine misrule, which blunted the public conscience and confused all moral conceptions.

Since the end of the eighteenth century the Danubian Principalities have attracted the unenviable notice of Russia, whose objective, Constantinople, is covered by them. In less than a century, from 1768 to 1854, these unfortunate countries suffered no less than six Russian occupations, and as many reconquests by the Turks. It speaks highly for the national spirit of the Roumanians that they should have borne the miseries entailed by these wars without relapsing into abject callousness and apathy; and that, on the contrary, the memory of their former national independence should have continued to gather fresh life, and that their wish to shake off the yoke of their bondage, be it Russian or Turkish, should have grown stronger with the lapse of time. The Hospodars, appointed by the Russians, were hindered in every way by the Turks in their task of awakening the national spirit and preparing the way for the regeneration of their enslaved people. Besides this, many of these Hospodars were prejudiced against the introduction of reforms which could only endanger their own interests and positions. They were, therefore, far more disposed to seek the protection of foreign States than to rely upon the innate strength of the people they governed. Such were the causes that hindered the development of the moral and material resources of the Roumanian nation.

The ideas from time to time conceived by the rulers of Russia for the unification of the Principalities were based solely on selfish aims and considerations. Thus, for instance, a letter dated September 10, 1782, from Catherine II., who gave the Russian Empire its present shape and direction, to the Emperor Joseph II., shows clearly that the state then proposed, consisting of Wallachia, Moldavia and Bessarabia, was to be merely a Russian outpost, governed by a Russian nominee, against the Ottoman Empire. Even in this century (1834) Russia would have been prepared to further the unification of the Principalities, if only they and the other Great Powers had declared themselves content to accept a ruler drawn from the Imperial House of Russia, or some closely allied prince. As, however, this was not the case, the Russian project was laid aside in favour of a policy of suppressing the national spirit by means of the Czars influence as protector. The Sublime Porte, on the other hand, was straining every nerve to maintain the prevailing state of affairs. And finally, Austria, the third neighbour of the Principalities, hesitated between its desire to gain possession of the mouths of the Danube by annexing Wallachia and Moldavia, and its disinclination to increase the number of its Roumanian subjects by four or five millions, and thereby to strengthen those incompatible elements beyond the limits of prudence. At the same time Austria looked upon the interior development of Roumania with an even more unfavourable eye than Russia, and it seemed as though Moldavia and Wallachia, in spite of the ever increasing desire of their inhabitants for union and for the development of their resources, so long restrained, were condemned to remain for ever in their lamentable condition by the jealousy of their three powerful neighbours.

At length came the February Revolution of 1848 in Paris, the effects of which were felt even in far Roumania. An insurrection arose in Moldavia: the Hospodar was forced to abdicate; and a Provisional Government, the Lieutenance Princière,[7] was formed at Bucharest, and proceeded to frame a constitution embodying the freedom of the Press, the abolition of serfdom and all the privileges of the nobility. The earlier state of affairs was, however, restored on September 25 of the same year by the combined action of the Russians and the Turks, with the result that the Principalities for a time lost even the last remnants of their former independence, and the power of the Hospodars was hedged in with such narrow restrictions by the Treaty of Balta Liman (May 1, 1849) that they could undertake no initiative without the sanction of the Russian and Turkish commissaries, under whose control they were placed.

The Crimean War brought with it emancipation from the Russian protectorate, but although the situation was now improving, much was still necessary before the Roumanians could regain their domestic independence. A French protector had taken the place of the Russian. The pressure, it is true, was by no means so severe, nor was it felt so directly as formerly, yet the country perforce suffered no inconsiderable damage, both moral and material, from the half-voluntary, half-compulsory compliance with the wishes of the French ruler. Napoleon wished to elevate Roumania, the "Latin sister nation," into a French dependency, and thereby to make France the decisive factor in the Oriental question. A willing tool was found in the person of the new Hospodar of the now united Principalities, and thenceforth everything was modelled upon French pattern.

An international Commission assembled in Bucharest in 1857, together with a Divan convoked by an Imperial Firman for Moldavia and Wallachia, to consider the question of the future position of the Danubian Principalities. The deliberations of these two bodies, however, resulted in nothing, as neither the Sublime Porte nor the Great Powers were