Elections for the ad hoc Divan were held in Wallachia in September 1857. They restored a liberalizing trend that had been repressed following the 1848 revolution, also giving expression to the national awakening that was taking part among the Romanians. The toppling of the conservative Regulamentul Organic regime in both Danubian Principalities made them possible: following the 1856 Treaty of Paris, Wallachia and Moldavia functioned as protectorates of the European powers; both were also clients of the Ottoman Empire. Excluding the spontaneous rallies of 1848, this was the first public consultation to be held in eleven years. It ran in conjunction with the Moldavian Divan elections, and, like them, had unusually lax criteria for participation, allowing peasants and guilds to vote by indirect suffrage.
The result in both countries was a sweep for parties which demanded union with Moldavia. In Wallachia, the progressive National Party, chaired by Constantin A. Kretzulescu, was on this topic indistinguishable from the conservative unionist factions, respectively led by brothers Gheorghe Bibescu and Barbu Dimitrie Știrbei. A fourth party, supporting Alexandru II Ghica and Dimitrie Ghica, cooperated with Kretzulescu's Committee, although disagreeing over some core policies. These groups held an absolute majority in the Divan, with only some seats going to non-unionists. Together, they formulated demands for union and increased autonomy, postponing debates about universal suffrage; middle-class progressives and the boyar elite also dissuaded peasant deputies from demanding land reform.
The Divan resolutions were taken into account by the European powers, and some were written into the Paris Convention of 1858, which became the new organic law for the "United Principalities". This document outlawed class privilege, but also reinforced old suffrage laws, eliminating the peasant vote. It also prevented the two states from fully merging, keeping the key institutions separate—but a loophole in the text allowed a personal union. In the repeat elections of January 1859, Wallachia voted a conservative "elective assembly", dominated by Bibescu supporters. Pressured by the National Party, which threatened violence, this new parliament gave its vote to a Moldavian, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, who became Hospodar, then Domnitor, of both countries.
Historical context Regulamentul background
The Principalities had been occupied by the Russian Empire during the latter's war with the Ottomans (1829). The result was a shared Russian–Ottoman custody, with Regulamentul Organic as a constitutional law imposed on both vassals. Introducing modernizing principles such as the separation of powers, Regulamentul also reformed representation for the estates of the realm, producing the "Ordinary National Assembly"; in Wallachia, this comprised 42 members—19 of whom were elected by the 17 counties.Preda, pp. 39–47 The electoral corps was exceedingly small: 20 representatives of the upper-crust boyar aristocracy were voted in by 56 electors, and the county representatives, generally low-ranking boyars, by some 400 electors.Preda, p. 46 This mixture of modernizing and traditional elements was arrived at by repressing both the emerging liberal current, which wanted more complete freedoms, and the traditionalist boyars, who resented power-sharing combinations.Hêrjeu, pp. 78–88; Xenopol, pp. 147–149
By 1836, the Assembly and the titular Prince of Wallachia, Alexandru II Ghica, were in open conflict, the boyars having discovered that sections of Regulamentul had been forged, giving legislative oversight to the Russian envoys. Although the event ended in defeat for the deputies, it helped consolidate a "National Party", which was increasingly anti-Russian.Demetriescu, pp. 19–21; Hêrjeu, pp. 86–98; Preda, pp. 57–59; Xenopol, pp. 160–169 This period saw early projects to unite Wallachia and Moldavia, with even liberal Russians encouraging the idea of a "Dacian" dukedom;Xenopol, pp. 174–176, 181 at least one such proposal, drafted by the Moldavian boyar Leonte Radu, also included the Principality of Serbia.Preda, p. 68
Following Ghica's ouster, his replacement was to be elected by the estates and then recognized by Sultan Abdulmejid I. The vote took place in December 1842, confronting two Russophile brothers with discreet nationalist agendas—Gheorghe Bibescu and Barbu Dimitrie Știrbei—, with each other, with the anti-Russian Iordache Filipescu, and with the arch-conservative Alecu Filipescu-Vulpea.Bibescu, pp. 33–53; Hêrjeu, pp. 99–101; Preda, pp. 23, 51–54 Bibescu won by exhaustive ballot, picking 69% of the votes in the last round.Bibescu, pp. 33–53; Hêrjeu, pp. 99–100; Preda, p. 54 Although nepotistic, his government introduced various liberal reforms, including a customs union with Moldavia, the defense of education in the national language, and the first steps toward abolishing Roma slavery.Hêrjeu, pp. 101–108, 181; Xenopol, pp. 182–190 He soon found himself at odds with the National Party over the issue of mines concessions and dismissed the Assembly, effectively ruling as an absolute monarch from 1844 to 1846. When finally elections were held in November 1846, the Prince clamped down on the boyars' electoral privilege by outlawing multiple registrations and by imposing his own candidates: 18 of 20 elected by the first estate were his close associates.Preda, p. 59. See also Hêrjeu, pp. 100–103, 129
However, within two years, he and his friendly Assembly were toppled by the liberal-and-nationalist Revolution. Regulamentul was denounced and publicly burned.Preda, pp. 63–65 During this brief interregnum, the Proclamation of Islaz promised universal male suffrage (tempered by indirect elections) within a republicized elective monarchy. Most revolutionaries agreed that there was still no social grounding for universal direct suffrage.Filitti, pp. 355, 357; Preda, pp. 60–63. See also Hêrjeu, pp. 142–147 Some elections based on these quasi-democratic principles were held at Vlașca, but the process was cut short by more pressing political issues.Preda, pp. 61–62 The new forms of representation allowed peasant deputies such as Ene Cojocaru to demand the abolition of corvée, which survived despite there being no formal serfdom. The issue became entangled with a lengthy and divisive discussion about land reform.Xenopol, pp. 154–156, 259–263, 288–295
Repressive regime
The clampdown by a joint Ottoman–Russian intervention, and the Convention of Balta Liman, restored Regulamentul but suspended the elective monarchy. Princes were designated by Abdulmejid, with Știrbei taking the throne of Wallachia for a period of seven years.Clain, p. 14; Giurescu, p. 139; Hêrjeu, pp. 161–162, 182; Iorga (1910), pp. 136, 186–188; Preda, p. 67 The Assembly, reconstituted as the "National Divan", mainly preserved consultative functions, being composed entirely of bureaucrats, judges, and bishops of the Wallachian Orthodox Church.Demetriescu, pp. 24–25; Hêrjeu, pp. 161–163; Iorga (1910), pp. 106–111; Preda, pp. 65–68 Most revolutionary leaders were either expelled or self-exiled. This group only included 23 men;Adrian Niculescu, "O experiență finită. Să sperăm! Un secol al exilului românesc", in Dosarele Istoriei, Issue 1 (53), 2001, p. 48 however, the government also began a clampdown on political activities, persecuting even those remotely associated with the 1848 cause—for instance, the architect Iacob Melic.Potra I, pp. 452–453; II, pp. 84–85, 125, 223 The poet Constantin D. Aricescu, who circulated revolutionary poetry in manuscript form, was arrested and imprisoned.Ș. Ionescu, p. 93; Tomescu & Velicu, pp. 104–105
The National Party was reconstructed in exile by the 1848 revolutionaries, who, from ca. 1850, began pressing for union above all other points on the agenda,Berindei, p. 408; Giurescu, p. 137; Iorga (1939), p. 699; Maciu (1959), pp. 43, 45 and (1967), pp. 418–422; Stanomir, pp. 35–36; Xenopol, pp. 301–317, 327–330, 354 although its leaders remained committed to international republican and European federalist causes to 1856.Hêrjeu, pp. 164–165 In this context, there was a noticeable rapprochement between Bibescu and the exiled revolutionaries, pushing Știrbei to adopt an even more conservative stance, and making him more reliant on the military.Iorga (1910), pp. 50–54, 136–137, 139–141 His repressive regime was cut short by the Crimean War, in which Western powers sided with the Ottomans against Russia. The events also interrupted Nicolae Pleșoianu's designs to participate with other former revolutionaries in the New South Wales gold rush. However, most failed to enlist in the Ottoman Army, as they had intended.Potra II, pp. 101–104
The Austrian Empire intervened to clamp down on revolutionary activity in Oltenia (the western third of Wallachia). Here, the Ottoman authorities had allowed the liberals to put out a newspaper, Jurnalul Craiovei, which, in June 1854, hosted Dimitrie Bolintineanu's editorial in support of union under Ottoman suzerainty.Adrian T. Pascu, "Din istoricul presei Unirii: Jurnalul Craiovei (1854)", in Revista de Istorie, Vol. 31, Issue 2, 1978, pp. 323–328 Also in June, Austrian troops occupied both Principalities, preventing Russia from maintaining a presence in the Balkans. With Count Coronini as military supervisor, Știrbei was reconfirmed as Prince. Alongside his minister Nicolae Kretzulescu, he consolidated conservatism, refusing to grant entry permits to exile radicals, and instituting heavy censorship of the media.Maciu (1959), pp. 44–49 Both however endorsed the unionist cause, explicitly so from 1855, when Kretzulescu lobbied the Palmerston cabinet and Napoleon III for a unified Romania, governed from Bucharest and possibly ruled upon by Știrbei.Maciu (1959), pp. 45–47; Xenopol, pp. 318–319, 326–327, 355. See also Clain, pp. 14–16; Hêrjeu, pp. 181–182 In such proposals, Știrbei also insisted that Wallachia preserve its dominant role, and campaigned against moving the capital to Iași.Xenopol, pp. 318–319 He found an ally in Ioan Maiorescu, the former revolutionary, who drafted a unionist project stressed the need for a Wallachian on the throne, and also promised to draw the resulting state into Austria's sphere of influence—though both regarded the latter proposal as unrealistic.Barbu, pp. 429–430
Știrbei and Maiorescu's vision was endorsed by some of the more conservative exiles, including Gheorghe Magheru and Ion Heliade Rădulescu; others, including the Romanian Revolutionary Committee of Paris, militated both against Știrbei and for unification.Maciu (1959), pp. 46–47. See also Isar (1988), passim; Maciu (1967), pp. 421–424, 425; Temperley, pp. 237–240 Another wing of the unionist movement was a "bourgeois group", clandestinely formed during autumn 1854 to support Alexandru II Ghica's return on the throne. Its members included Ion Ghica, Constantin Bosianu, economist Gheorghe Costaforu, and banker Cristache Polihroniadi, who together sponsored the newspaper Timpul.Maciu (1965), p. 97 As noted by diplomat Henry Stanley, the Wallachians were also divided along geopolitical priorities. Boyars, who were especially fearful of land reform, included "many Russian partizans ", while the middle classes were mostly against Russia, with students and peasants generally pro-Ottoman.Temperley, pp. 233–234