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.

Also backed by the antisemitic Free and Independent Faction, it came to power with Constantin A. Crețulescu, but created an international scandal by endorsing the eviction of Jewish "vagabonds" from the countryside.

[9] 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.

[10] 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.

[11] 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.

[12] 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".

[15] 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".

[19] 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.

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.

[21] 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.

[26] 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.

[27] 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.

[32] 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.

"[33] 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.

[34] 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.

[35] 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.

"[40] The message was also carried by poet Dimitrie Bolintineanu, the liberal candidate in Ismail, who wrote to his voters that: "Everything [should be] done for the country and nothing can be achieved without union and harmony between parties and government".

As "all eyes were set on the election",[41] it was discovered that a Bulgarian Romanian cell, revolving around Hadzhi Dimitar and Stefan Karadzha, had prepared a military raid over the Danube from their base in Pietroșani.

[43] Similarly, the Senate seat assigned to the University of Bucharest, widely believed to be a secure win for the liberal Constantin Bosianu, remained vacant, with most teaching staff absent for the vote.

An anonymous report, carried by various French newspapers, noted that there was a "certain affectation" in how General Golescu responded to Sabri's demands, and claimed that Romanian authorities had created the incident, then the BRCK's repression, precisely to convince Europe that they did not approve of Pan-Slavism.

[57] This vote was again mired by controversy, as four "members of the old majority"—Ionescu, Plagino, Gheorghe Costaforu and Christian Tell—apparently conspired to filibuster, including by bringing up issues related to the July campaign; Ionescu also insisted that the Assembly was driving the country bankrupt, and urged his colleagues to take lessons in political economy.

During the parliamentary vacation, Agenor de Gramont was instructed by France's government to meet with Alexandru Ioan Cuza, the exiled former Domnitor, and discuss his potential return on the throne in Bucharest.

[59] Brătianu was still disliked abroad, for both his antisemitic past and his new endeavors, including overtures to Prussia which angered France; at home, Carol was becoming unsure of his minister's competence.

[66] In November, Ghica reassured the Ottoman government of its "loyalty and conciliatory intent", moving in to punish "Red" dissenters such as General Alexandru D. Macedonski, and calling for new elections in March 1869.