Elections for the Senate were held in Romania on July 7–11 (New Style: July 19–23),"Principatele române unite", in Telegrafulu Romanu, Issue 56/1868, p. 222Nicolescu, p. 37Nicor., "Revista politică", in Ghimpele, Issue 7/1868, pp. 1–2 1868. They were called by Prime Minister Nicolae Golescu to strengthen his majority in the 1867 legislature, and, although party affiliations remain unclear, ensured a victory for Golescu and the various liberal-radical factions (or "Reds"). The snap election followed standoffs between Senate and the Assembly of Deputies, in particular one over the issue of constructing a Romanian railways system. It also came after major disagreements between "Red" politicians and the Free and Independent Faction, which had previously backed Golescu, before moving closer to the center.
Conservative voters (the "Whites") were reportedly taken by surprise, and the election, like many others of the period, was marred by malpractices favoring government. The resulting Senate was overall "reddish" or "pink", combining a majority of "Reds" and their occasional allies. Despite general defeat, various leading figures of the opposition, including Nicolae Ionescu, Gheorghe Costaforu, and Ioan Manu, managed reelection. Campaigning was prolonged by some by-elections for the Assembly, with Ilfov and several other counties still voting on July 13–15 (July 25–27)."Intrunire eleptorale", in Romanulu, July 13, 1868, p. 1"Primarulŭ comunei Bucurescĭ", in Romanulu, July 14, 1868, p. 1"Deputatii aleși la 14 și 15 Iuliu", in Romanulu, July 15–16, 1868, p. 1
The period witnessed new developments in the long crisis over the issue of Jewish emancipation, with its regular outbursts of antisemitic violence at Bacău and elsewhere. It also brought the early stages of the Strousberg Affair, and diplomatic incidents related to Bulgarian revolutionary activity on Romanian soil, including Hadzhi Dimitar's conspiracy at Pietroșani. Despite helping to consolidate executive power, the election, which had remarkably low voter presence, could not tackle these obstacles. Government was also weakened by diplomatic intrigues—the Ottoman Empire, Romania's suzerain power, resented its radicalism, as did the French Empire, Austria-Hungary, and eventually Prussia. Some four months after his victory, Golescu resigned to be replaced by the "White" Dimitrie Ghica, who overturned the liberal majority in the elections of March 1869.
Context Early clashes The 1866 Constitution had consolidated the "United Principalities" into a centralized monarchy, ruled by Domnitor Carol of Hohenzollern. Nevertheless, political life remained troubled, with government instability and passionate disputes about the proposed emancipation of Romanian Jews. With support from the Domnitor,Brătescu, pp. 14, 19 "Red" liberal factions, holding a slim plurality in the Assembly, had fused into a "Concordia Agreement". Also backed by the antisemitic Free and Independent Faction, it came to power with Constantin A. Kretzulescu, but created an international scandal by endorsing the eviction of Jewish "vagabonds" from the countryside.Brătescu, pp. 15–22; Gane, pp. 115–116; Loeb, pp. 158–167; Marton, pp. 24–26, 104, 155; Taftă (2003), passim This affair was engineered by the Interior Minister, Ion Brătianu. Although in and out of office during that period, he was, by various accounts, a behind-the-scenes leader of the executive.Marton, pp. 24, 191; Opaschi, pp. 164–166
This "Red" consolidation was viewed with displeasure in the French Empire, where Brătianu was remembered chiefly for his youthful involvement with a political conspirator and regicide, Giuseppe Marco Fieschi.Opaschi, p. 164. See also Iorga, pp. 50–51, 57 Early 1868 came with a noticeable strain in Franco–Romanian relations, with French officials suspecting that Carol and Brătianu were seeking to create a secret alliance with Prussia and the Russian Empire. This was partly validated when Carol sent Ioan C. Cantacuzino and Melchisedec Ștefănescu to Saint Petersburg, where they negotiated an end to the privileged status of Russian citizens on Romanian soil—and, in effect, the recognition of Romania as self-governed.Ceobanu, pp. 26–28; Iorga, pp. 51–52, 57–58, 63 Delaporte, the French consul in Iași, alleged in January 1868 that Brătianu exercised a hypnotic power on the Domnitor, but also that the "Reds" and the Romanian Freemasonry had an ultimate plan to topple the monarchy altogether.Opaschi, pp. 164–167 In reality, the monarch was pursuing his own foreign policy, which implied ending Romania's subservience toward the Ottoman Empire and establishing a Balkan Federation of "Christian states".Iorga, pp. 49–50
A reshuffled Concordia government, headed by Ștefan Golescu, organized general elections in late 1867. These were widely believed to have been manipulated by government through intimidation and fraud, and as such a pattern for the following elections.Gane, p. 114; Marton, pp. 192–198 Although the "Reds" had overall control of Parliament, splits and disputes continued to present obstacles: in the Assembly, the Factionalists proposed a radically antisemitic bill that was only defeated with support from moderate "Reds"; at the time, the Prime Minister was under foreign pressure to limit antisemitic excesses.Brătescu, pp. 21–25 Having supported the expulsion of Jews from the countryside, and still embracing generic economic antisemitism, Brătianu backed down to some extent, noting that the Factionalists were being excessive, "inhumane and un-Romanian".Brătescu, pp. 22–23 However, he also continued tolerate the expulsions of Jews by his subordinate Gheorghe Lecca, with antisemitic incidents concentrated in places such as Bârlad and Bacău.Loeb, pp. 167–170
By then, the Concordia alliance was under strain, with the Factionalists, who were centered in Western Moldavia, pressuring government to inaugurate a working Court of Cassation at Focșani.Nicolescu, pp. 32–33 Visiting Bacău and Iași to canvass among the local liberals and thus create a moderate alliance, Brătianu was met by a riotous mob of Factionalist voters.Brătescu, p. 24 The continued discrimination against Jews also became a rally point for some conservatives (or "Whites"), including Vaslui deputy Petre P. Carp, who had a number of public disputes with the Interior Minister.Brătescu, p. 24; Gane, pp. 122–124; Marton, p. 155; Nicolescu, pp. 33–35 Despite their differences on the issue of emancipation, it became apparent that the "Whites", mostly aristocratic "boyars", were reaching out to the middle-class Factionalists, united in their rejection of "Red" liberalism. Factionalist deputies (including Alexandru Gheorghiu, Alecu D. Holban, Ioan Negură, and Ianache Lecca) attacked government at the same time as Carp, citing concerns about limitations on press freedom.Nicor., "Camera de josŭ", in Ghimpele, Issue 5/1868, pp. 1–2 The left-leaning humorist Nicor satirized this alliance by claiming that the Factionalist senator Nicolae Ionescu was trying to pass for a "boyar" or "young lord", "avoiding democracy like the plague."Nicor., "Revista politică", in Ghimpele, Issue 5/1868, p. 1
General Golescu's ascendancy Following the international backlash after particularly violent antisemitic activities in Bacău,Brătescu, pp. 24–25; Gane, pp. 123–124; Loeb, pp. 170–171 the Prime Minister resigned, officially because of illness.Nicolescu, p. 34 Leadership of the cabinet was assigned to General Nicolae Golescu, his brother, who was even more of a moderate. When General Golescu apologized to European governments for the intolerance cultivated in earlier years, the Faction began voting with the opposition, and the majority was again undermined; this weakening continued as centrist "Reds" began demanding that Brătianu and his radicals be shuffled out of Golescu's cabinet.Brătescu, pp. 25–26 Nevertheless, moderation greatly improved Romania's standing in Europe, and, although still an Ottoman vassal, she came to be treated as a nation-state by Prussia, Russia, and Austria-Hungary.Brătescu, p. 25. See also Ceobanu, pp. 27–28 After having been highly critical of Romania's stance on Jewish migration, France was also coming to show signs of leniency: in March 1868 Delaporte contended that Jews had a monopoly on all trade in Moldavia, and therefore that economic antisemitism was justified.Taftă (2003), pp. 99–100
During the same months, however, a scandal erupted over revelations that Golescu may have been backing a Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee (BRCK) to foment anti-Ottoman revolts in the Danube Vilayet. The allegations were received with concern in France, were Lionel de Moustier, the Foreign Minister, asked Romanians to report on the issue.Nicolescu, p. 31. See also Taftă (2001), passim The matter was taken up in Parliament by Carp, in clashes with Brătianu, where the junior deputy issued warnings about the consolidation of Pan-Slavism around Romania.Gane, pp. 117–122 The Assembly eventually followed the minister's explanation, voting to reject Carp's accusations as false;Nicolescu, pp. 31–32 the liberal press followed suit, claiming that Carp was using the "Bulgarian bands" issue and the "Israelite question" to filibuster. However, in April–May, news of antisemitic repression gave Factionalists in the Senate an opportunity to demand that government present its diplomatic correspondence for senatorial review. This request erupted into a conflict between Assembly and Senate, with the former controlled by the "Reds" and Brătianu.Nicolescu, p. 35
Much debate between the two houses involved concession awarded by government for the creation of a Romanian railways system, with Senate questioning the details of such grants. The incipient scandal, or "Strousberg Affair", began on May 16 (New Style: May 28), when rapporteur Constantin Hurmuzachi pleaded for subcontracting to the Prussian venture capitalists, Bethel Strousberg and Abraham Oppenheim.Nicolescu, pp. 38–42. See also Gane, p. 124 According to Nicor, the Assembly had a vested interest: "the deputies, as men of the people, with few means at their disposal, [wanted] something to take them from the provinces to the capital and vice versa, [...] whereas Senate, made up of bigwigs, fat cats with incomes of no less than 800 ducats, people of inspired pockets, most of them owners of coaches and postilions in bandit clothes, wanted to censure the rabble's taste for traveling and pulled off that blunder that was heard around the country." The liberals at Românul also described Senate as obstructionist and driven by "personal interest", "putting the nation at risk of having no railways.""Bucurescĭ 16/28 Răpciune", in Romanulu, September 15–17, 1868, pp. 1–2
Campaign The dispute then turned to different readings of the Constitution: following a literal interpretation and breaking with established procedure, Senate asked to be involved in the passing of financial regulation.Nicolescu, pp. 35–36 Conservative senators also attacked General Golescu for tolerating new antisemitic incidents which threatened to upset diplomatic gains; meanwhile, in the Assembly, Panait Donici tried to push through a new law banning Jews from commercial life.Loeb, p. 171 On May 31 (June 12), an alliance of Factionalist and "White" senators drafted a motion of no confidence; of the 54 elected and ex officio members present for that session, 32 voted in favor, 8 against, and 14 abstained.Nicolescu, p. 36 Assembly deputies reacted and, on July 1 (July 13), vetoed the motion, returning advantage to the "Reds".Brătescu, p. 26; Nicolescu, pp. 36–38