mania from being swallowed up by Hungary, Austria, or Russia, which countries are ever looking with longing eyes toward these rich valleys in the hope of some day possessing them.

The Treaty of Paris, after the war of the Crimea, fixed the status of Roumania toward Turkey and the Great Powers in a way to assist in the formation of the new nation which Europe seemed to desire as a barrier between the Occident and the Orient. The principalities were to continue to be under the protectorate of the Porte, and the guarantee of the contracting powers, for the enjoyment of all the immunities and privileges of which they were then in possession; but these were very illy defined. And it was further stipulated that these prin cipalities might govern themselves, and without any co-operation or interference of the Porte, within the limits agreed on by the Great Powers and the Turkish government. And thus the whole matter was diplomatically left in so confused and indistinct a state that neither the Great Powers, the Porte, nor the principalities themselves, knew how they stood toward each other.

This seemed to be an opportunity granted to these provinces to see what they could do for themselves. If they could be successful in the experiment of self-government, Europe would be glad to see them succeed, and thus put an end to the vexed question as to what was best to do with the territory lying along the Danube between Hungary and the sea. This was, of course, not agreeable to Turkey, who would like to continue in force the sovereignty still claimed, but of late yielded with a passably good grace, though not by any means relinquished.

For a long series of years the principalities had been governed by native princes under the sovereignty of Turkey. Their rule, however, had been one continued history of intrigues and family strife, ending in revolt or assassination. When, in 1866, the last native prince, Cousa, followed the fate of his predecessors, it was thought best to give up the effort to get along with native rulers, and, with the consent of the Sultan and the Great Powers, Prince Charles of Hohenzollern was called to govern the United Principalities of the Danube. On the occasion of the marriage of this prince, in his auto

graph letter to the Sultan, he for the first time used the official title of Roumania.

The poor prince virtually accepted a crown of thorns. Roumania, as he took it, was bad enough; but Young Roumania, as it has since developed itself, and whose story we shall mainly tell, is as wayward, self-willed, selfish, and ungovernable a child as ever entered the family of nations. Prince Charles has scarcely spent a happy, quiet hour since he went there, and again and again he has threatened to throw up his charge and leave. He has only been deterred from so doing by an ardent and honest desire to benefit the people over whom he is called to rule, and by the earnest entreaties of the more sensible and thoughtful among the Roumanians, who would see in his departure an end to all their hopes regarding self-government.

The crazy fantasy has taken possession of the young men. especially that they are to be the modern Romans, and must look to their supposed ancestors for their political teachings. In this they have been taught by a certain Professor Barmetz, of the Juristic Faculty of Bucharest, the capital, and now deceased. For several years he lectured on the common law of Roumania, and his lectures, left in manuscript, have since been published, and the book is heralded by his pupils as the gospel of the new birth of Roumania. His principal postulates are that ancient Roman law has continued to live in spirit in the traditions of the Dacians, and that it is only necessary to revive this code to attain to ancient Roman greatness. questions are to be solved in this sense, beginning with the old agrarian laws, according to which two thirds of their possessions must be taken from wealthy landholders and distributed among the people, so that every Roumanian may become a landholder.

With a view to revive national trade and industry, foreign competition must be destroyed; and this is to be effected by driving all strangers from the country, especially the Jews and the Germans. This doctrine also leads, of course, to opposition to a foreign prince, and those who preach it insist that every foreign dynasty must therefore be null and void. These radicals adopt the French cognomen of the "Reds," and, by the aid of the moderate liberals or fractionists, occasionally come

into power; but whether in or out, they are ever causing a world of trouble, as the frequent diplomatic notes regarding affairs in Roumania fully attest.

It is of little use to prove that these assertions of Barmetz are all without foundation, and that the Romans practically never did any such thing; these radicals think they ought to have done so, and this satisfies them as to the doctrine.

As to the presence of foreigners in Roumania, it may be an evil, but it is one very necessary to its existence. The Roumanians, as a people, are singularly lacking in industry and knowledge. They may be divided into two classes: the Boyars, or nobles, who are too proud to do any thing, and the peasants, who scarcely know enough to till the soil successfully. Manufactures, trade, and commerce must therefore be in the hands of strangers, or cease to exist and the State must perish. For centuries the Germans have represented the industrial interests, and the Jews have carried on the trade of the country. The schools owe their idea, their culture, and their teachers to France and Germany. The only way to dispense with these parties is to raise up native substitutes to take their places, and to expel them by being more industrious, more active, and more intelligent than they. So long as this is not the case the persecution of foreigners, as such, is simply a piece of barbarism and inconsistency.

Roumania is indeed a land of inconsistencies and harsh contrasts. In appearance it is neither oriental nor occidental, but partakes to a certain extent of both these qualities. The two grades of civilization mingle, but do not assimilate. The Boyar nobles are ever striving to imitate the luxury and the manners of Western Europe, while the peasants conservatively cling to their old semi-oriental ways. European culture is maintained and developed mainly by the classes that are illtreated, namely, the Germans and the Jews. In the Carpathian mountains timber is so abundant that the owners cannot obtain remuneration for simply cutting it, while in the neighboring cities fuel is so dear that the poor can scarcely obtain enough for the necessaries of life.

The soil is very rich, and the plains are capable of becoming the granaries of surrounding nations. But over vast regions the agricultural processes are so primitive that the produc

tion is very limited; and then again, as if to keep up the contrast, one finds model farms where all the appliances of the best English and American implements are brought into use. These same sharp contrasts are met in the cities themselves. Bucharest is noted for them. The fashionable avenue of the capital resembles that of some of the larger cities of Europe; the stores make brilliant displays, and elegant equipages roll by containing aristocratic ladies adorned in princely style. A few rods aside from these, in either direction, one meets open lots covered with rude cabins and reeking with filth, and streets peopled with naked children, lounging men, and smoking women. The only industrials to be seen are the gypsies, with their portable forges, plying their customary occupations.

Civilization seems to have been sprung upon the Roumanians while a large portion of the population are not ready for it, and it sits with no grace on any but the wealthy Boyars, who spend years in Paris and other European capitals and bring back with them their luxurious habits acquired abroad. It were far better for the country had the change been gradual, so that all classes might have grown into it and assimilated with it. There are some good schools and hospitals, but they are sustained and controlled by a few energetic persons for the benefit of a very small fraction of the upper classes. And if these are chided for neglecting the masses below them, they invariably answer that the poorer classes are so deficient in capacity and development that it would be labor lost to endeavor to extend these advantages to them.

The Greek Church is greatly at fault for the low moral and religious condition of the people. The priests are perfectly satisfied with the external observance of the old ritual laws and ceremonies, and spare their subjects any onerous submission to internal convictions. The most incongruous materials will assemble for their religious observances, varying in nationality and belief, or with no belief at all.

Recent laws have abolished all caste distinctions, and still these practically exist all over Roumania. As there is really no native middle class, the chasm between the peasantry, even those who have lately become landholders, and the Boyar nobles, is practically impassable. The Constitution is very generous, with

rights and privileges for the sovereign people; but these latter are totally unacquainted with the simplest forms of parliamentary life, and are thus excluded from a share in the government. The people still believe in what they have learned by tradition, and have little desire to pass beyond the patriarchal form of government. Civil matters are, therefore, entirely in the hands of the heavy landed proprietors, lawyers, professors of the schools, and the literary men generally. These take the greatest interest in the elections, and compose the great majority of the members of their legislative body. About a dozen influential families think themselves born to the people, and are not slow to claim it; and of course those ruling houses, whose access to power is cut off by the fact that a foreign prince is on the throne, are ever ready to find fault about every political mishap that occurs.

This dissatisfaction has given impetus to the growth of the Young Roumanians, who date their birth from the revolutionary period of 1848. It was at this time that arose the cry for nationality in the midst of revolutions, and the example of the Hungarians was not to be lost on the inhabitants of the various provinces of the Lower Danube, who claimed a common origin. As we know, this enthusiasm was followed by no practical effect, for Russian intervention assisted the Austrian authorities in quelling every uprising in this sense. But, though the men were conquered, the spirit lives, and it has gradually grown with the present generation. It has been nurtured in the German fashion by the teachers and students of the higher schools, until it has run into a species of political enthusiasm in which men's theories have got the better of their brains. The Wallachians began to study their Latin origin, and permitted their fancy to find roots with the Latin people that most probably never existed. In this vagary they were not a little assisted by the notions of Louis Napoleon, who fancied himself sent to restore the Latin races on both continents to the power once held by their ancestors.

This was the origin of the modern cry of Pan-Latinism, which so pleased the fancy of the Wallachians that they were ready to run into any extreme which might seem calculated to further their notions. The more radical any political measure, the more sure it was to find favor with the Pan-Latinists, or FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXV.-8