# Romania in the British Parliament, 1803–2026: two centuries of debate, counted day by day

From "Moldavia and Wallachia" to "Romania", the country on the lower Danube and the Black Sea: how often it is named in the debates of MPs and peers at Westminster, who spoke and what they said. Measured against everything printed, the Crimean War outranks both 1990 and 2013.

On 19 December 2013, twelve days before the last limits on Romanian and Bulgarian workers expired, Members of Parliament spent an afternoon in Westminster Hall, the second debating chamber of the House of Commons, arguing over whether to keep them. The debate named Romania or Romanians 133 times. Among all the debates on Romania in the record of Parliament, which goes back to 1803, that afternoon ranks only sixth.

The largest is that of 1 November 2005, on Romania's accession to the European Union. The second is from 4 May 1858, when W. E. Gladstone, a future Prime Minister, asked the House of Commons to give weight to the wish of the Wallachians and Moldavians to unite, and lost by 114 votes to 292. The following winter the two principalities elected the same prince, and from their union came the modern state.

Three measures give three peaks. By number of mentions the fullest year is 1990, the year after the fall of Nicolae Ceaușescu, Romania's communist leader, when the state of its orphanages reached Parliament: 1,230 mentions. By sitting days on which the name was spoken it is 1939, the year Britain guaranteed Romania's independence: 72 of 174 in the Commons. Measured against everything printed, nothing exceeds the Crimean War: in 1854, 108 mentions per million words.

The moments a newspaper reader would pick today look different in the count. Ceaușescu's state visit to London in June 1978 brought no statement and no debate on it in Parliament. The dispute over Romanian workers peaks in 2013, before the restrictions ended on 1 January 2014, not after: 907 mentions in 2013, 331 in 2014. The printed name changes on the way: "Roumania", then "Rumania", then "Roumania" again, and "Romania" only from 1970.

The record is Hansard. Until 1909 it was a private publication, compiled largely from newspaper reports; since then it has been Parliament's own Official Report. A program read every digitised volume, 2.5 billion words, and counted every form the country's name has taken in English: Wallachia and Moldavia, "the Principalities", Roumania, Rumania, Romania, and Bucharest, its capital. The name appears 24,591 times, in 9,209 debates and questions.

## Year by year: the Lords on the left, the Commons on the right

Each row is a year. The green bar shows on how many of the Commons' sitting days the name was spoken; the red bar shows the same for the Lords. Above each group of years stands the name as Hansard printed it then. An open year shows the debates with most mentions, who spoke, and one sentence from the record. References give the volume and the column: Hansard is printed in two numbered columns to a page.

## The Crimean War: Parliament never said so much about the Principalities

*The years 1803–1859*

For half a century Wallachia and Moldavia appear rarely, and almost only as a stake between empires. They were the two principalities on the lower Danube, under Ottoman suzerainty, that united in 1859 and became Romania. The earliest mention found is dated 22 December 1806: a despatch printed among the papers of the House of Commons reports that the Porte, the Ottoman government, has removed their ruling princes. The first peak comes in 1849, when Lord Dudley Stuart asks the Government for papers on the Russian occupation that followed the revolutions of 1848.

Then comes the Crimean War. In July 1853 Russia occupies the Principalities, and for years Parliament argues over who should evacuate them, who should garrison them and who should guarantee them. In 1854 the name appears 443 times, and in 1855 340 times: 108 and 102 mentions per million words printed, the highest values in all the 222 years for which digitised text exists. About two thirds are the bare word "Principalities". Nobody needed to be told which ones.

The Treaty of Paris of 30 March 1856 places the Principalities under the guarantee of the great powers and promises them assemblies in which the inhabitants can say what they want. In the summer of 1857 the elections in Moldavia are rigged against union. On 14 August W. E. Gladstone, a Member of Parliament and former Chancellor of the Exchequer, reads to the Commons the order received by a Moldavian official:

> By virtue of your office I order you to labour without ceasing against the foolish idea of the union of the Principalities, and to use all your efforts in order that the inhabitants of your town may become adversaries of the union.
> — an order to a Moldavian official, read to the House by W. E. Gladstone, HC Deb, 14 August 1857, vol. 147, col. 1670

On 4 May 1858 Gladstone goes further and asks the House to tell the Queen that the wishes of the Moldavians and Wallachians should carry weight in the negotiations. The debate fills columns 44 to 106 of volume 150 of Hansard and names the country 264 times, more than the rest of that year put together.

> You want to place a living barrier between her and Turkey. There is no barrier, then, like the breast of freemen.
> — W. E. Gladstone, on Russia, HC Deb, 4 May 1858, vol. 150, col. 59

The Government is against. From the opposition benches it is joined by Viscount Palmerston, Prime Minister until that February, under whom the Crimean War had ended:

> The House may therefore rest satisfied that the union of Wallachia and Moldavia under a foreign prince means nothing less than their union under the sway of the Russian Royal family, or of some one dependent upon Russia.
> — Viscount Palmerston, HC Deb, 4 May 1858, vol. 150, col. 88

Among those who speak on Gladstone's side are Lord John Russell and Lord Robert Cecil, the future Marquess of Salisbury, who would be Prime Minister three times. The motion is lost by 114 votes to 292. The following winter the Moldavians and the Wallachians elect the same prince, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, and make the union themselves.

## 1872–1880: the Jews of Roumania, Bessarabia, and an independence recognised late

*The years 1860–1881*

After the union of 1859 the new name takes hold slowly. "Roumania" first appears in Hansard on 29 July 1864, in a proclamation by Prince Cuza quoted by a Member, and from 1875 the old names never again outnumber the new ones in the Commons. Officially things stand otherwise. Five weeks before Romania proclaims its independence from the Ottoman Empire, the British Government still answers:

> Roumania, under the title—the official title—of the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, is regarded in its political relations to foreign Powers as a portion of the Turkish Empire.
> — Robert Bourke, for the Government, HC Deb, 17 April 1877, vol. 233, col. 1270

In these years the country reaches Parliament mostly because of the persecution of its Jews. In 1868 the Foreign Secretary, Lord Stanley, says of the persecution in the Principalities:

> I know of no instance in our time of a series of oppressive acts which were committed so completely—I will not say merely without any provocation, but, so far as I can see, without any reasonable and intelligible motive whatever.
> — Lord Stanley, Foreign Secretary, on the persecution of the Jews of Roumania, HC Deb, 24 April 1868, vol. 191, col. 1267

On 19 April 1872, after the riots at Ismail and Cahul, Sir Francis Goldsmid, a Member who speaks of "my brethren in Roumania and Servia", asks for the diplomatic correspondence and for joint action by the guaranteeing powers. His debate holds 63 of the year's 67 mentions. Viscount Enfield answers for the Government that Britain has telegraphed to five capitals, and asks him not to press; Goldsmid withdraws his amendment, without a vote.

1878 is the fifth year in the whole record by density of mentions: 255 mentions, 49.7 per million words. At stake is southern Bessarabia, which Russia demands back from the ally beside whom it has just fought the Turks. On 8 April 1878 Gladstone tells the Commons:

> As to the taking of Bessarabia from Roumania, it appears to me impossible to conceive an act more impolitic or more culpable than that spoliation would be.
> — W. E. Gladstone, HC Deb, 8 April 1878, vol. 239, col. 885

The Government agrees that Romania is in the right, but is not prepared to fight for it:

> And, therefore, so far as that is concerned, Roumania has a good deal the best of the argument.
> — Gathorne Hardy, from the Government side, HC Deb, 8 April 1878, vol. 239, col. 938

The Treaty of Berlin of 13 July 1878 recognises Romania's independence on two conditions: southern Bessarabia goes to Russia, and difference of religion may no longer be a ground for exclusion from civil and political rights (Article 44). Britain, France and Germany recognise the independence only on 20 February 1880. Three days later the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells the Commons:

> The three Powers have, therefore, in pursuance of the Treaty, recognized the independence of Roumania.
> — the Chancellor of the Exchequer, HC Deb, 23 February 1880, vol. 250, col. 1187

## The First World War: "we dragged in Roumania into this War"

*The years 1882–1920*

For three decades after 1881, Romania is in Hansard mostly as a trading partner: commercial treaties, navigation on the Danube, oil. Everything changes in 1916. Romania enters the war on the side of the Entente on 27 August, in the middle of the parliamentary recess, and the House of Commons hears of it from the Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, only on 11 October, the day after it returns.

In December Bucharest, the capital, is occupied. That winter the Irish Nationalist Member John Dillon accuses the Government of having drawn Romania into the fight on the promise of an offensive from Salonika that never came. The two debates in which the charge is made hold 160 of the 238 mentions of 1917:

> the world, therefore, is left under the impression that we dragged in Roumania into this War when we knew that she was unprepared
> — John Dillon, Irish Nationalist Member, HC Deb, 20 February 1917, vol. 90, col. 1203

The Government's reply, given by Andrew Bonar Law on 5 March 1917, says little about Romania:

> All I am prepared to say in regard to Roumania is that no threat of any kind was used towards Roumania to induce her to come in
> — Andrew Bonar Law, for the Government, HC Deb, 5 March 1917, vol. 91, col. 134

In 1916 and in 1917 the name is spoken in the Commons on one sitting day in three: on 36 of 114, then on 26 of 87. Whole volumes of the war years are missing, however; for the House of Lords nothing is digitised between the autumn of 1916 and the summer of 1917, the very months of the defeat.

On 11 March 1918, days after the Central Powers impose the preliminary peace of Buftea on Romania, the Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, promises the House:

> it will certainly be our duty and our endeavour to obtain at the eventual Peace Conference a revision of the harsh terms which have been imposed
> — Arthur Balfour, Foreign Secretary, HC Deb, 11 March 1918, vol. 104, col. 22

After the armistice the subject becomes Transylvania, the province that passed from Hungary to Romania at the end of the war. On 16 December 1919, in the House of Lords, Viscount Bryce asks the Government about a memorial from the Catholic, Calvinist and Unitarian bishops of Transylvania, and calls for an inquiry into the conduct of the Romanian army and for an impartial commission to draw the frontier. Lord Stanmore answers for the Government. The two positions, side by side:

> This claim to the whole of Transylvania and a large part of Hungary is unjust and not based on the facts of the case.
> — Viscount Bryce, HL Deb, 16 December 1919, vol. 38, col. 211

> A great injustice was wiped out when it was decided that Transylvania should be united to Rumania.
> — Lord Stanmore, for the Government, HL Deb, 16 December 1919, vol. 38, col. 217

## 1928: the Lords' largest debate on Romania was about Hungarian landowners

*The years 1921–1930*

In the 1920s Romania appears in the House of Commons almost weekly, in questions about war debts, unpaid bonds, oil and trade. In the meantime the printers have changed the name: "Roumania" becomes "Rumania", in the House of Lords during the war, in the House of Commons in 1921–1922.

The great debate of the decade, however, is held in the House of Lords and concerns a few hundred landowners. Romania's land reform had also expropriated the Transylvanian estates of those who had opted for Hungarian citizenship, the "optants"; Hungary took the case to an arbitral tribunal and then to the League of Nations. On 25 June 1928, under the title "Hungarian Claims against Rumania", the Lords name the country 138 times: it is the largest debate on Romania in the whole record of the House of Lords. Most of the speakers press Hungary's case; Lord Thomson answers with Romania's.

> In other words, they gave the Hungarians their Judge on the condition that judgment went against them.
> — Lord Newton, on the League of Nations committee, HL Deb, 17 November 1927, vol. 69, col. 114

> Rumania was pledged to the hilt to introduce agrarian reform
> — Lord Thomson, HL Deb, 25 June 1928, vol. 71, col. 640

The Government, through the Earl of Birkenhead, declines to take sides:

> The less that we attempt to dictate to the Council of the League the more likely are we to retain our influence with them.
> — the Earl of Birkenhead, for the Government, HL Deb, 25 June 1928, vol. 71, col. 659

The dispute was closed by the agreements of The Hague and Paris, of January and April 1930.

## 1939: the year Romania became a British commitment

*The years 1931–1941*

In the 1930s the subjects are small and frequent: debts, trade through the clearing office, oil, wheat, the fate of minorities. Then, in March 1939, after Germany occupies Czechoslovakia, word reaches London of a German economic ultimatum to Romania. On 22 March Sir Samuel Hoare tells the Commons that the Romanian Government has officially denied it. Three weeks later, on 13 April, the Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, reads to the same House:

> in the event of any action being taken which clearly threatened the independence of Greece or Rumania, and which the Greek or Rumanian Government respectively considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Greek or Rumanian Government, as the case might be, all the support in their power.
> — Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister, HC Deb, 13 April 1939, vol. 346, col. 13

The Labour opposition welcomes the guarantee; Hugh Dalton says it comes "only just in time". The harshest critic is the former Prime Minister David Lloyd George, on 8 May:

> Without Russia those three guarantees to Poland, to Rumania and to Greece are the most reckless commitments that any country has ever entered into.
> — David Lloyd George, former Prime Minister, HC Deb, 8 May 1939, vol. 347, col. 71

1939 is the year in which the name was spoken on the most sitting days in the Commons: 72 of 174 (41%). In the Lords, on 24 of 135. In all, 668 mentions, more than in any other year before 1990.

The guarantee was never invoked. In the summer of 1940 Romania loses Bessarabia, northern Bukovina and northern Transylvania, and on 17 July the Under-Secretary of State, R. A. Butler, answers a question about what has become of the guarantee:

> The Rumanian Government declared publicly on 1st July that they renounced the Anglo-French guarantee of 13th April, 1939.
> — R. A. Butler, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, HC Deb, 17 July 1940, vol. 363, col. 187

Romania enters the war beside Germany. Two years and eight months after Chamberlain's declaration, the Commons hears another:

> His Majesty's Government declared war upon Finland, Rumania and Hungary as from one minute after midnight, G.M.T., on 7th December.
> — Richard Law, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, HC Deb, 10 December 1941, vol. 376, col. 1502

## 1947: a peace treaty that spelled it "Roumania", and the trial of Iuliu Maniu

*The years 1942–1948*

While Romania fights beside Germany, what reaches Parliament is mostly the fate of its Jews. On 4 March 1942 two Members ask why the 750 Jewish refugees from Romania aboard the steamship Struma were refused entry to Palestine before the ship sank. On 23 March 1943 the Lords debate aid for refugees from German atrocities, and the Government says that Palestine has agreed to admit 500 children from Hungary and Romania.

After 23 August 1944, when King Michael's coup took Romania out of the alliance with Germany, the country returns to the debates as a defeated state in the Soviet sphere. On 14 March 1945 the Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, announces:

> A new Government assumed office in Rumania on 6th March headed by Doctor Groza, leader of a party known as the Ploughman's Front.
> — Anthony Eden, Foreign Secretary, HC Deb, 14 March 1945, vol. 409, col. 211

On 2 December 1946, after the November elections, the Under-Secretary of State, Christopher Mayhew, says what the Government thinks of them. The Communist Member William Gallacher asks whether they were not "much freer and fairer" than recent elections in America.

> The information at the disposal of His Majesty's Government leaves me no alternative but to agree with my hon. Friend that the elections were neither free nor fair.
> — Christopher Mayhew, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, HC Deb, 2 December 1946, vol. 431, col. 40

The peace treaty with Romania is signed in Paris on 10 February 1947. The statute by which Parliament gives it effect is the Treaties of Peace (Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland) Act 1947: after a quarter of a century of "Rumania", the official text returns to the old spelling. From the autumn of that year the headings in Hansard follow it.

In November 1947 Iuliu Maniu, leader of the National Peasant Party and a former Prime Minister, is sentenced to life imprisonment. Members ask the Minister whether the trial has broken the article of the treaty that guaranteed human rights. Two answers, two months apart; the first is given before the full reports of the trial have arrived:

> The conduct of the trial of Dr. Maniu and his associates followed the usual lines of Eastern European political trials, and left much to be desired by western standards.
> — Christopher Mayhew, HC Deb, 19 November 1947, vol. 444, col. 1118

> It is clear from the evidence now available that most of the so-called crimes of which Dr. Maniu and his associates were accused would not be considered crimes in a democratic State
> — Hector McNeil, Minister of State at the Foreign Office, HC Deb, 28 January 1948, vol. 446, col. 986

The abdication of King Michael, on 30 December 1947, leaves almost no trace: among the paragraphs of January to March 1948 that name Romania, the King appears once, in a jibe by the same Gallacher.

## 1978: a state visit on which Parliament held no debate

*The years 1949–1988*

After 1948 the name thins out. In the 1950s what remains is expelled diplomats, churches, nationalised British property; in 1959 the Commons speaks the name on 9 of 161 sitting days. In the 1960s and 1970s Romania is mostly a market: steel, a nuclear reactor, aircraft.

Nicolae Ceaușescu, Romania's communist leader from 1965 to 1989, is in London on a state visit from 13 to 16 June 1978. In Parliament no statement is made and no debate is held on the visit. The Prime Minister, James Callaghan, mentions it in passing; on 14 June he explains his absence from a debate on the economy:

> I have had over five hours of discussion today with the President of Romania.
> — James Callaghan, Prime Minister, HC Deb, 14 June 1978, vol. 951, col. 1128

What Parliament discusses in the following days is the deal concluded on the occasion: the licence to build the British BAC One-Eleven airliner. On 28 June, in the Lords, Lord Chelwood questions the contract, and the Minister is pressed on whether it was tied to human rights:

> what sort of commercial sense does it make to license the Romanian Government to manufacture 80 BAC 1–11s and 225 Rolls-Royce Spey engines
> — Lord Chelwood, HL Deb, 28 June 1978, vol. 394, col. 304

> Romania's undertakings in the 1947 Peace Treaty and in the Final Act have not been directly linked with agreements on the transfer of technology.
> — Lord Goronwy-Roberts, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, HL Deb, 28 June 1978, vol. 394, col. 303

In the whole of 1978 the name is spoken in the Commons on 24 of 168 sitting days, about as often as the year before (23 of 158), and in the Lords on 8 of 126. By density of mentions, the year of the visit ranks 84 of 222.

The longest discussion of these forty years concerns one man. Stancu Papusoiu, as Hansard prints the name, reaches England in 1982 hidden in a lorry, asks for asylum, is refused and is sent to Bucharest on 16 March 1983. The Lords debate the case on 29 March (69 mentions), the Commons two days later. Two positions:

> Many people have been revolted by the idea of a person being sent back to Ceausescu's Romania.
> — Lord Bethell, HL Deb, 29 March 1983, vol. 440, col. 1525

> I have turned the matter over and over in my mind and I still believe that the correct decision was made.
> — David Waddington, Minister of State at the Home Office, HC Deb, 31 March 1983, vol. 40, col. 522

In 1988, when the regime's plan to demolish thousands of villages becomes known, the British Government tells the Lords:

> we deplore Romania's policy of systemisation, which will apparently involve forced resettlement on a nationwide basis, and the destruction of thousands of villages.
> — Lord Glenarthur, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, HL Deb, 29 July 1988, vol. 500, col. 489

## 1990: the year with the most mentions in two centuries

*The years 1989–1990*

On 10 April 1989 Lord Bethell asks in the Lords that the Queen be advised to withdraw the honour Ceaușescu had received in 1978. The Government refuses:

> It would, however, be inappropriate for Her Majesty to be involved in a political gesture of the kind proposed; nor do we have any plans to advise otherwise.
> — Lord Trefgarne, for the Government, HL Deb, 10 April 1989, vol. 506, col. 2

Eight months later, on 19 December, as news reaches London of the dead of Timișoara, the city in western Romania where the revolution began, the Member David Winnick asks:

> May the House be given an opportunity to express its revulsion at the killings being carried out by the Romanian Government?
> — David Winnick, Labour Member, HC Deb, 19 December 1989, vol. 164, col. 233

The Commons holds its last sitting before Christmas on 21 December. Ceaușescu flees the next day. When the Commons returns, on 8 January 1990, the Romania it talks about is a different country.

1990 is the year with the most mentions in the whole record: 1,230 mentions, more than three and a half times as many as in 1991. The name is spoken in the Commons on 66 of 176 sitting days. 42% of the mentions are in paragraphs that speak of orphans, children, adoption or HIV.

On 10 May 1990 the Member Humfrey Malins opens a debate on the orphanages:

> It may be thought surprising that we in this country did not know earlier of the appalling tragedy of the Romanian orphans.
> — Humfrey Malins, Conservative Member, HC Deb, 10 May 1990, vol. 172, col. 501

The Government replies that British aid since the revolution, direct or through the European Community, has reached £6.6 million. Then, in June, miners are brought to Bucharest to break up a protest. On 28 June the Minister of State, William Waldegrave, tells the Commons:

> That is why we were so profoundly shocked by President Iliescu's decision to call on the miners to act as vigilantes.
> — William Waldegrave, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, HC Deb, 28 June 1990, vol. 175, col. 592

The last large debate of the year, on 19 December 1990, is called "Romanian Refugees", but it too is about the children in the orphanages and the Britons who wanted to adopt them: 135 mentions.

## 2002 and 2005: a letter about the Galați steelworks, and the largest debate in the whole record

*The years 1991–2006*

In the 1990s the name stays frequent in the debates, without peaks: adoptions, the enlargement of NATO, to which Romania is not invited in 1997, the start of negotiations to join the European Union. In 1999, during the war in Kosovo, the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, says:

> To Bulgaria and Romania, we owe a debt for their co-operation with the sanctions regime and their agreement to overflight by NATO.
> — Robin Cook, Foreign Secretary, HC Deb, 17 June 1999, vol. 333, col. 588

In February 2002 the opposition learns that the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had written on 23 July 2001 to his Romanian counterpart welcoming the sale of the Sidex steelworks at Galați, a port on the Danube, to LNM, the company of Lakshmi Mittal. Mittal had given £125,000 to the Labour Party. On 13 February the Conservative leader, Iain Duncan Smith, asks Blair:

> I repeat, was he or his chief of staff aware that the owner of that company, Mr. Mittal, had at any time—I repeat, at any time—donated money to his party?
> — Iain Duncan Smith, Leader of the Opposition, HC Deb, 13 February 2002, col. 198

> It was written at the instigation of the British embassy in Romania. It was written for the very simple reason that this was a reform, namely the selling off of an old state industry, which we supported strongly.
> — Tony Blair, Prime Minister, on the letter, HC Deb, 13 February 2002, col. 198

Blair adds that the letter named the company, not Mittal, and that the decision to award the contract had been made before the letter was written. On 5 March a motion on steel by the Welsh party Plaid Cymru brings 95 mentions of the name in one afternoon and is defeated by 318 votes to 192. Half the mentions of 2002 fall in February and March.

In March 2004 it becomes public that the British consul in Bucharest had complained that visa applications from Romanians and Bulgarians were being approved without checks. On 30 March the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, suspends all applications from the two countries, and on 1 April the immigration minister, Beverley Hughes, resigns, telling the House that she may, however unwittingly, have given a misleading impression about whether the concerns had reached her desk.

The peak comes on 1 November 2005, when the Commons debates the Bill that gives effect in British law to the treaty by which Romania and Bulgaria join the European Union: 332 mentions, the largest debate on Romania found in all 224 years. Every large party supports accession, and the Bill is given its second reading without a division. The argument is about something else: whether the two countries are ready. The Minister who moves the Bill says himself that they have work left to do:

> Corruption remains a serious problem in both countries, undermining public and business confidence, and they need to take urgent and vigorous action to tackle it.
> — Douglas Alexander, Minister for Europe, HC Deb, 1 November 2005, col. 732

The right of the new European citizens to work is left for later. On 24 October 2006, two months before accession, the Home Secretary, John Reid, announces the decision in a written statement:

> Thirdly, the UK will maintain controls on Romania and Bulgaria's access to jobs for a transitional period.
> — John Reid, Home Secretary, written statement, HC Deb, 24 October 2006, col. 82WS

## 2013: the argument over Romanian workers was held before 1 January 2014

*The years 2007–2014*

Romania joins the European Union on 1 January 2007, but for seven more years, as long as the accession treaty allows, Romanians and Bulgarians need permission to work in the United Kingdom: until 31 December 2013. As the date approaches, 2013 becomes the second year in the whole record by number of mentions, 907 mentions, more than a third of them in written answers. The name is spoken in the Commons on 50 of 153 sitting days.

Those who ask for the restrictions to be extended are mostly Conservative backbenchers. They cite the wrong forecast made for the states that joined the Union in 2004, the pressure on housing and public services, and the promise to reduce immigration. On 19 December 2013, in the largest of the debates (133 mentions), Nigel Mills says:

> The only realistic answer is to keep proportionate restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians in place for a further period.
> — Nigel Mills, Conservative Member, HC Deb, 19 December 2013, col. 300WH

The Government, also Conservative-led, answers that it cannot, and declines to estimate how many people will come:

> I do not think there is any possibility, under the directive or the accession treaties for Bulgaria and Romania, of complying with the request in the petition.
> — Mark Harper, Minister for Immigration, HC Deb, 22 April 2013, col. 226WH

> we have not prepared forecasts of likely inflows from Romania and Bulgaria once restrictions are lifted.
> — Mark Harper, written answer, HC Deb, 12 December 2013, col. 320W

The Labour opposition tells those who want an extension that nobody had voted against the accession treaty:

> He could have argued that Bulgaria and Romania should not be allowed to join the European Union and he could have forced a vote on the treaty. But he did not—no one did.
> — Chris Bryant, Labour Member, HC Deb, 22 April 2013, col. 223WH

The tone of the debate is itself a subject, in every party. The Conservative Mark Pritchard, who opens the debate of 22 April, asks at the outset:

> In all such discussions and debates, I believe that tone, accuracy and objectivity, rather than subjectivity, must be our goal as policy makers—to articulate fact rather than fiction, to be pragmatic rather than ideological, and to seek out solutions rather than scapegoats.
> — Mark Pritchard, Conservative Member, HC Deb, 22 April 2013, col. 187WH

The Labour Member Paul Blomfield speaks, on 11 December, of a Romanian student who had come to one of his advice surgeries in Sheffield:

> She was enthusiastic when she came to Britain, but she was deeply depressed by the public discourse around Romania and Bulgaria and their citizens, which made her feel unwelcome.
> — Paul Blomfield, Labour Member for Sheffield Central, HC Deb, 11 December 2013, col. 76WH

Parliament rises on 19 December 2013 and returns on 6 January 2014. In December the name appears 223 times; in January, 73 times; in the whole of 2014, 331 times.

On 14 May 2014, when the first statistics after the end of the restrictions are published, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, tells the Commons:

> the employment of Romanians and Bulgarians actually went down in the first three months of this year following the lifting of the controls, which is notable.
> — David Cameron, Prime Minister, HC Deb, 14 May 2014, col. 744

## 2018–2026: from workers to allies

*The years 2015–2026*

After the 2016 referendum, Romanians in the United Kingdom appear in the debates as European citizens whose status has to be settled. On 19 June 2018 Westminster Hall holds a debate called simply "UK-Romanian Relations": 248 mentions, the third largest in the whole record. It is opened by Bob Blackman, chair of the all-party group for Romania, who tells the Commons a year later:

> In my constituency, I have more than 10,000 Romanian citizens, who are contributing directly to our economy, working hard and contributing to Britain.
> — Bob Blackman, Member for Harrow East, HC Deb, 27 June 2019, col. 790

At the 2021 census, 538,840 residents of England and Wales had been born in Romania; in 2011 there had been 79,687.

From February 2022 Romania is named mostly as an ally on the edge of the war in Ukraine: visa centres for refugees, mines in the Black Sea, NATO troops. The Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, on 19 May 2022:

> We are setting up four new multinational battle groups in Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, doubling NATO’s presence in the region.
> — Ben Wallace, Defence Secretary, HC Deb, 19 May 2022, col. 912

On 10 December 2024 a written answer from the Foreign Office records the annulment of the first round of Romania's presidential election. On 1 June 2026, questions to the Ministry of Defence begin like this:

> May I start by condemning the reckless Russian drone strike on Romania early on Friday morning?
> — John Healey, Defence Secretary, HC Deb, 1 June 2026, col. 825

In 2025 the name was spoken in the Commons on 25 of 158 sitting days and in the Lords on 17 of 168. The count stops on 2 October 2026.

## What Hansard called Romania: four names, changed five times

Read from end to end, Hansard shows the country changing its name on the page. Until 1859 Members say "Moldavia and Wallachia" or, in the years of the Crimean War, simply "the Principalities". On 3 February 1859, two weeks after Moldavia elected Alexandru Ioan Cuza as its prince and two days before Wallachia chose the same man, Palmerston notices a new word, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer replies that it was Palmerston who brought it in:

> I am glad to hear that the arrangement of those Provinces which of late have got a new name—which we used to call the Danubian Provinces, but which we are now it seems, to call the Rouman Provinces—is going on satisfactorily
> — Viscount Palmerston, HC Deb, 3 February 1859, vol. 152, col. 76

> I believe the epithet "Rouman" was borrowed from a despatch of the noble Viscount.
> — the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Benjamin Disraeli, HC Deb, 3 February 1859, vol. 152, col. 82

"Roumania", after the French spelling, first appears in 1864 and lasts until the First World War. Then the two Houses move, one after the other, to "Rumania": the Lords from 1915, the Commons in 1921–1922. In 1947 the peace treaty and the Act that applies it are written with "Roumania" again, and Hansard goes back to the old form for almost two decades. In 1966 the Commons returns to "Rumania". Only from 1970 does it write, as Romanians do, "Romania".

The changes belong to those who print, not to those who speak: the reporter hears the same word. In the paragraphs that name the country, only one speaker ever wonders about the spelling. On 11 May 1981, in the Lords, Lord Derwent asks, "purely of curiosity", at what stage "Roumania" started being spelt "Romania". The Minister, Lord Trefgarne, replies that the same question had occurred to him while preparing for the sitting and that he does not, as yet, have an answer.

The record itself supplies it: in the Lords, "Romania" becomes the most used form from 1970. Across the whole archive the old forms (Wallachia, Moldavia, Principalities) add up to 2,159 mentions, "Roumania" to 3,299, "Rumania" to 4,354 and "Romania" to 13,498. The capital is named 1,281 times.

## Who spoke about Romania

The lists count, for each era, in how many debates a Member or peer named the country. The names are those printed in Hansard. Ministers often appear under their office only ("The Prime Minister", "The Chancellor of the Exchequer") and speeches printed that way are left out; the same printed name more than 12 years apart is treated as another person.

No Member has spoken about Romania in more debates than Keith Vaz, Labour Member for Leicester East: 95 between 2001 and 2017, most often against the restrictions on work. In the nineteenth century the first is Palmerston, who answered for British foreign policy from the 1830s to the 1860s.

## How often, beside other countries of the region

For comparison, the names of five other countries were counted in the same way, as nouns only, without adjectives such as "Bulgarian": "Bulgaria", "Hungary", "Greece", "Poland" and "Serbia" (with "Servia" and, from 1918, "Yugoslavia"). For Romania the count takes "Romania", "Roumania", "Rumania" and, until 1918, "Wallachia" and "Moldavia". The table shows mentions per million words printed, by decade; the highest value in each row is in bold.

Romania is first in no decade. Greece and Poland, with their wars, partitions and risings, occupied the British Parliament far more often; in the 1990s it was the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Since the 1830s Romania has risen to second place twice: in the 1850s, behind Greece, and in the 1930s, behind Poland.

## Method and limits

### What was counted

Every occurrence, in the text of the debates, of the names Wallachia, Moldavia, Danubian Principalities, Roumania, Rumania and Romania, of the forms for the people and the language (Roumanian, Rumanians and the rest) and of the capital (Bucharest, Bukarest). Wallachia and Moldavia are counted until 1918; after that they name regions or the Soviet republic. "The Principalities" alone is counted only between 1848 and 1866, and only in debates that also name Wallachia, Moldavia or the Danubian Principalities: Parliament also calls Wales "the Principality". The spelling "Romania" is counted from 1859; earlier it means Nauplia ("Napoli di Romania") or Rumelia. "Bucharest" includes the treaties that bear its name. Debate titles, tables of contents and volume indexes are not counted.

"Debate" here means any item in Hansard with its own heading: a debate, a question, a statement or a written answer. In references, "W" after a column number marks a written answer and "WS" a written statement.

### Where the text comes from

Up to the 2001 general election: 2,462 volumes from Parliament's archive of files and another 147 that are missing there but exist on the Historic Hansard site, read section by section. From 13 June 2001: the daily ParlParse files of mySociety, 25,777 files, one for each day and each kind of sitting. Only the 16,088 paragraphs that name the country were kept, with the number of words for each day.

For 13 June 2001 to 31 December 2002, which both sources cover, the count gives 608 mentions in the archive and 607 in ParlParse. The ParlParse files do not include sittings of the Lords' Grand Committee.

### What is missing

110 volumes are digitised in neither source: 37 from the series before 1909, 62 of the House of Commons and 11 of the House of Lords, most of them from 1915–1925. The years affected are hatched, and each year's card says how many volumes are missing. A year without mentions means the name is absent from what survives, not that it was never spoken. In 593 places the date of a sitting was wrong in the file. In 394 of them the day of the month was right and the month or year wrong, and the date was restored from the neighbouring sittings; in 71 the first sitting day that the Historic Hansard site lists after the sitting before was taken or, where the file gave a Sunday, the weekday between the neighbouring sittings; in 128 the sitting kept the date of the one before. Ranks are reckoned among the 222 years for which digitised text exists.

### What a mention means

Until 1909 Hansard is a report, in places in the third person, not a transcript; a two-hour speech may fill one column. From 1909 there are also written answers, printed apart: between 2002 and 2010, 47% of the mentions are in written answers and statements, many in lists of the member states of the European Union. That is why the bars show days on which the name was spoken in the chamber, and why density is reckoned per million words printed in that year.

What a Member says in the House is reported here as it was said. That an allegation was made in Parliament does not mean it is established.

### Checks

The search on Parliament's Hansard site finds one of these forms on 6,003 sitting days (queried on 4 October 2026). The count here has 5,843 of them (97%) and finds the name on another 1,169 days, among them 25 June 1928, the Lords' largest debate. The days that appear only in the official search belong mostly to the Commons' bill committees, which are not included here; a few are sittings whose wrong date in the files the search has kept.

Optical character recognition (OCR) damages some words. A search that tolerates up to two wrong letters finds 18 broken forms of the name ("Rouniania", "Buchorest", "Rornania") beside 15,653 correct ones in the volumes scanned from paper: about one in a thousand. Errors that produce another English word cannot be counted this way: in a speech of 1919, "Ruman population" came out as "Human population".

### The sentence on each year's card

It is chosen by a rule: the first sentence that names the country, of 8 to 60 words, in the debate with the most mentions of that year. Lists of countries and table rows are skipped. In 63 years the sentence the rule gave was damaged by scanning, said nothing on its own or could not be read fairly without the reply that followed. In 23 of them the next sentence was taken; in 33, one was chosen by hand from that year's debates, and the card says so; in seven, no sentence is shown. In another seven years no sentence met the rule.

### Every year

| Year | Mentions | Per million words | Days, Commons | Days, Lords | Debates | Million words |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1803 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 0.2 |
| 1804 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 0.3 |
| 1805 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 1.2 |
| 1806 | 8 | 7.4 | under 1% | 0% | 1 | 1.1 |
| 1807 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 0.3 |
| 1808 | 9 | 8.6 | under 1% | 0% | 1 | 1.0 |
| 1809 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 1.4 |
| 1810 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 0.3 |
| 1811 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 1.0 |
| 1812 | 4 | 3.5 | 1% | 0% | 1 | 1.2 |
| 1813 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 0.5 |
| 1814 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 0.3 |
| 1815 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 0.9 |
| 1816 | 0 | – | – | – | 0 | 0.0 |
| 1817 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 1.1 |
| 1818 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 0.5 |
| 1819 | 1 | 0.5 | under 1% | 0% | 1 | 1.9 |
| 1820 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 1.9 |
| 1821 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 1.2 |
| 1822 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 1.4 |
| 1823 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 1.3 |
| 1824 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 1.2 |
| 1825 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 1.2 |
| 1826 | 4 | 3.0 | 3% | 2% | 3 | 1.3 |
| 1827 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 1.0 |
| 1828 | 1 | 0.7 | 1% | 0% | 1 | 1.4 |
| 1829 | 0 | – | – | – | 0 | 0.0 |
| 1830 | 2 | 0.8 | under 1% | 0% | 1 | 2.4 |
| 1831 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 4.1 |
| 1832 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 3.2 |
| 1833 | 5 | 1.6 | 1% | 0% | 2 | 3.2 |
| 1834 | 9 | 3.3 | under 1% | under 1% | 2 | 2.8 |
| 1835 | 4 | 1.4 | under 1% | 0% | 1 | 2.8 |
| 1836 | 17 | 6.1 | 3% | 0% | 4 | 2.8 |
| 1837 | 5 | 1.9 | 1% | 0% | 2 | 2.6 |
| 1838 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 2.3 |
| 1839 | 2 | 0.7 | under 1% | 0% | 1 | 3.1 |
| 1840 | 2 | 0.7 | under 1% | 0% | 1 | 2.8 |
| 1841 | 2 | 0.8 | under 1% | 0% | 1 | 2.3 |
| 1842 | 1 | 0.3 | under 1% | 0% | 1 | 3.6 |
| 1843 | 40 | 11.5 | 2% | 3% | 6 | 3.5 |
| 1844 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 2.8 |
| 1845 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 3.6 |
| 1846 | 1 | 0.3 | 0% | under 1% | 1 | 3.6 |
| 1847 | 7 | 1.8 | 2% | 0% | 3 | 4.0 |
| 1848 | 4 | 1.2 | 1% | 0% | 2 | 3.4 |
| 1849 | 72 | 24.8 | 5% | 0% | 5 | 2.9 |
| 1850 | 43 | 15.1 | 3% | 0% | 3 | 2.9 |
| 1851 | 18 | 5.5 | 2% | 0% | 3 | 3.2 |
| 1852 | 1 | 0.3 | 0% | under 1% | 1 | 3.2 |
| 1853 | 100 | 26.3 | 3% | 5% | 9 | 3.8 |
| 1854 | 443 | 108.0 | 12% | 13% | 32 | 4.1 |
| 1855 | 340 | 102.1 | 12% | 6% | 24 | 3.3 |
| 1856 | 137 | 41.1 | 6% | 4% | 12 | 3.3 |
| 1857 | 129 | 34.1 | 6% | 4% | 14 | 3.8 |
| 1858 | 283 | 83.7 | 8% | 0% | 8 | 3.4 |
| 1859 | 118 | 44.0 | 10% | 6% | 17 | 2.7 |
| 1860 | 1 | 0.2 | 0% | under 1% | 1 | 4.5 |
| 1861 | 17 | 5.1 | 5% | 0% | 6 | 3.3 |
| 1862 | 5 | 1.7 | under 1% | 1% | 2 | 2.9 |
| 1863 | 53 | 17.2 | 5% | 0% | 5 | 3.1 |
| 1864 | 17 | 4.9 | 4% | 3% | 7 | 3.5 |
| 1865 | 3 | 1.1 | 1% | 0% | 1 | 2.6 |
| 1866 | 108 | 31.8 | 6% | under 1% | 10 | 3.4 |
| 1867 | 59 | 13.8 | 6% | 4% | 14 | 4.3 |
| 1868 | 28 | 9.0 | under 1% | 2% | 3 | 3.1 |
| 1869 | 10 | 2.6 | 3% | 0% | 3 | 3.8 |
| 1870 | 3 | 0.8 | 2% | 0% | 2 | 3.9 |
| 1871 | 21 | 5.3 | 5% | 0% | 6 | 3.9 |
| 1872 | 67 | 19.4 | 2% | 0% | 2 | 3.5 |
| 1873 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 3.0 |
| 1874 | 1 | 0.4 | 1% | 0% | 1 | 2.7 |
| 1875 | 51 | 14.8 | 3% | 5% | 9 | 3.4 |
| 1876 | 51 | 13.9 | 3% | 5% | 10 | 3.7 |
| 1877 | 81 | 23.9 | 16% | 8% | 31 | 3.4 |
| 1878 | 255 | 49.7 | 20% | 9% | 43 | 5.1 |
| 1879 | 53 | 11.2 | 7% | 6% | 14 | 4.7 |
| 1880 | 32 | 9.8 | 7% | 2% | 8 | 3.3 |
| 1881 | 15 | 2.6 | 7% | 0% | 9 | 5.8 |
| 1882 | 6 | 0.8 | 2% | 0% | 4 | 7.1 |
| 1883 | 18 | 2.9 | 6% | 0% | 9 | 6.2 |
| 1884 | 35 | 5.5 | 5% | under 1% | 8 | 6.4 |
| 1885 | 3 | 0.6 | 2% | 1% | 3 | 4.8 |
| 1886 | 2 | 0.4 | 2% | 0% | 2 | 5.1 |
| 1887 | 6 | 0.8 | 1% | 2% | 5 | 7.7 |
| 1888 | 5 | 0.7 | 1% | under 1% | 3 | 7.6 |
| 1889 | 6 | 1.1 | 2% | under 1% | 3 | 5.3 |
| 1890 | 9 | 1.5 | 3% | 2% | 6 | 5.8 |
| 1891 | 14 | 3.2 | 3% | 0% | 4 | 4.4 |
| 1892 | 14 | 3.9 | 5% | 0% | 5 | 3.6 |
| 1893 | 16 | 1.9 | 4% | 0% | 9 | 8.5 |
| 1894 | 5 | 1.2 | 3% | 0% | 3 | 4.2 |
| 1895 | 6 | 1.5 | 3% | under 1% | 4 | 4.0 |
| 1896 | 0 | 0.0 | 0% | 0% | 0 | 4.7 |
| 1897 | 15 | 3.4 | 5% | 0% | 6 | 4.5 |
| 1898 | 11 | 1.9 | 2% | under 1% | 4 | 5.9 |
| 1899 | 3 | 0.5 | 2% | 0% | 3 | 5.7 |
| 1900 | 15 | 2.5 | 6% | 3% | 10 | 5.9 |
| 1901 | 14 | 2.9 | 6% | 1% | 7 | 4.8 |
| 1902 | 38 | 4.6 | 8% | 1% | 17 | 8.3 |
| 1903 | 22 | 4.4 | 7% | 1% | 10 | 5.0 |
| 1904 | 8 | 1.4 | 2% | 2% | 6 | 5.8 |
| 1905 | 18 | 3.3 | 10% | 1% | 14 | 5.5 |
| 1906 | 50 | 6.5 | 9% | 4% | 20 | 7.7 |
| 1907 | 7 | 1.0 | 5% | under 1% | 7 | 7.1 |
| 1908 | 10 | 1.1 | 5% | 2% | 10 | 9.5 |
| 1909 | 13 | 1.2 | 3% | 2% | 7 | 11.1 |
| 1910 | 8 | 1.4 | 3% | 0% | 3 | 5.8 |
| 1911 | 25 | 2.0 | 8% | 4% | 18 | 12.7 |
| 1912 | 22 | 2.2 | 4% | 0% | 8 | 10.0 |
| 1913 | 39 | 3.7 | 7% | 3% | 15 | 10.5 |
| 1914 | 10 | 1.5 | 4% | 0% | 6 | 6.8 |
| 1915 | 64 | 10.5 | 13% | 4% | 20 | 6.1 |
| 1916 | 158 | 20.3 | 32% | 1% | 45 | 7.8 |
| 1917 | 238 | 40.6 | 30% | 2% | 32 | 5.9 |
| 1918 | 183 | 17.8 | 27% | 9% | 61 | 10.3 |
| 1919 | 261 | 21.3 | 28% | 6% | 76 | 12.3 |
| 1920 | 212 | 22.5 | 22% | 5% | 55 | 9.4 |
| 1921 | 109 | 22.9 | 27% | 11% | 29 | 4.8 |
| 1922 | 113 | 11.5 | 23% | 7% | 52 | 9.9 |
| 1923 | 217 | 38.0 | 29% | 9% | 44 | 5.7 |
| 1924 | 112 | 14.7 | 25% | 1% | 50 | 7.6 |
| 1925 | 60 | 6.8 | 22% | 2% | 37 | 8.8 |
| 1926 | 58 | 6.2 | 14% | 2% | 29 | 9.3 |
| 1927 | 89 | 8.8 | 12% | 3% | 29 | 10.2 |
| 1928 | 221 | 26.4 | 15% | 6% | 34 | 8.4 |
| 1929 | 42 | 5.9 | 11% | 2% | 21 | 7.1 |
| 1930 | 109 | 9.6 | 21% | 4% | 67 | 11.3 |
| 1931 | 74 | 6.7 | 15% | 3% | 42 | 11.0 |
| 1932 | 74 | 7.5 | 17% | 3% | 40 | 9.8 |
| 1933 | 48 | 5.4 | 17% | 2% | 33 | 8.9 |
| 1934 | 60 | 5.5 | 18% | 3% | 39 | 10.8 |
| 1935 | 112 | 13.5 | 20% | 4% | 40 | 8.3 |
| 1936 | 119 | 12.0 | 24% | 4% | 50 | 9.9 |
| 1937 | 73 | 6.7 | 12% | 6% | 40 | 10.9 |
| 1938 | 344 | 30.2 | 36% | 17% | 111 | 11.4 |
| 1939 | 668 | 53.9 | 41% | 18% | 147 | 12.4 |
| 1940 | 225 | 30.7 | 36% | 7% | 67 | 7.3 |
| 1941 | 132 | 19.8 | 25% | 7% | 48 | 6.7 |
| 1942 | 33 | 4.8 | 15% | 6% | 25 | 6.9 |
| 1943 | 56 | 6.5 | 13% | 4% | 29 | 8.6 |
| 1944 | 109 | 10.9 | 16% | 10% | 37 | 10.0 |
| 1945 | 158 | 18.4 | 19% | 5% | 63 | 8.6 |
| 1946 | 276 | 21.5 | 21% | 11% | 72 | 12.8 |
| 1947 | 360 | 21.7 | 28% | 6% | 94 | 16.6 |
| 1948 | 265 | 20.6 | 30% | 5% | 78 | 12.9 |
| 1949 | 162 | 11.3 | 19% | 6% | 54 | 14.3 |
| 1950 | 89 | 8.5 | 15% | 13% | 36 | 10.5 |
| 1951 | 60 | 5.1 | 12% | 6% | 31 | 11.7 |
| 1952 | 58 | 3.9 | 11% | 5% | 32 | 14.8 |
| 1953 | 41 | 3.0 | 8% | 2% | 24 | 13.5 |
| 1954 | 49 | 3.7 | 10% | 2% | 26 | 13.2 |
| 1955 | 68 | 5.9 | 13% | 4% | 37 | 11.6 |
| 1956 | 68 | 4.7 | 12% | 3% | 34 | 14.4 |
| 1957 | 40 | 3.0 | 6% | 2% | 20 | 13.3 |
| 1958 | 35 | 2.6 | 5% | 4% | 18 | 13.5 |
| 1959 | 26 | 1.9 | 6% | 4% | 19 | 14.0 |
| 1960 | 28 | 1.9 | 4% | 6% | 22 | 14.3 |
| 1961 | 65 | 3.9 | 11% | 4% | 33 | 16.5 |
| 1962 | 45 | 2.9 | 6% | under 1% | 18 | 15.5 |
| 1963 | 49 | 3.2 | 5% | 4% | 31 | 15.4 |
| 1964 | 72 | 4.5 | 10% | 3% | 36 | 16.0 |
| 1965 | 46 | 2.6 | 6% | under 1% | 30 | 18.0 |
| 1966 | 111 | 6.8 | 10% | 3% | 51 | 16.3 |
| 1967 | 87 | 4.5 | 4% | under 1% | 32 | 19.5 |
| 1968 | 97 | 4.9 | 13% | 5% | 48 | 19.9 |
| 1969 | 93 | 5.3 | 9% | 4% | 41 | 17.7 |
| 1970 | 102 | 7.2 | 9% | 3% | 42 | 14.2 |
| 1971 | 65 | 3.0 | 4% | 5% | 32 | 21.7 |
| 1972 | 56 | 2.6 | 5% | 5% | 32 | 21.7 |
| 1973 | 49 | 2.5 | 3% | 5% | 32 | 19.3 |
| 1974 | 70 | 4.4 | 6% | 3% | 40 | 15.9 |
| 1975 | 116 | 5.2 | 15% | 6% | 71 | 22.1 |
| 1976 | 148 | 5.9 | 11% | 7% | 94 | 25.1 |
| 1977 | 183 | 9.2 | 15% | 4% | 76 | 20.0 |
| 1978 | 152 | 7.0 | 14% | 6% | 76 | 21.9 |
| 1979 | 139 | 8.1 | 8% | 10% | 59 | 17.3 |
| 1980 | 138 | 5.8 | 10% | 7% | 74 | 23.7 |
| 1981 | 116 | 5.0 | 7% | 7% | 60 | 23.0 |
| 1982 | 97 | 4.2 | 8% | 4% | 56 | 23.0 |
| 1983 | 194 | 9.9 | 5% | 3% | 46 | 19.7 |
| 1984 | 63 | 2.5 | 2% | 3% | 40 | 25.6 |
| 1985 | 119 | 4.8 | 5% | 2% | 60 | 25.0 |
| 1986 | 115 | 4.5 | 7% | 3% | 65 | 25.8 |
| 1987 | 61 | 2.9 | 6% | 3% | 41 | 20.8 |
| 1988 | 160 | 5.9 | 8% | 6% | 53 | 27.0 |
| 1989 | 266 | 9.8 | 17% | 3% | 76 | 27.1 |
| 1990 | 1,230 | 46.7 | 38% | 14% | 260 | 26.3 |
| 1991 | 335 | 14.4 | 14% | 11% | 115 | 23.3 |
| 1992 | 262 | 13.4 | 15% | 7% | 99 | 19.5 |
| 1993 | 134 | 5.4 | 13% | 7% | 85 | 24.9 |
| 1994 | 173 | 7.2 | 12% | 8% | 101 | 24.1 |
| 1995 | 181 | 7.4 | 11% | 5% | 101 | 24.5 |
| 1996 | 203 | 8.0 | 10% | 11% | 90 | 25.5 |
| 1997 | 195 | 9.6 | 11% | 11% | 76 | 20.3 |
| 1998 | 186 | 6.6 | 11% | 13% | 108 | 28.2 |
| 1999 | 296 | 10.9 | 18% | 15% | 119 | 27.0 |
| 2000 | 193 | 6.5 | 12% | 8% | 98 | 29.9 |
| 2001 | 198 | 8.0 | 16% | 8% | 108 | 24.8 |
| 2002 | 513 | 17.4 | 19% | 10% | 186 | 29.5 |
| 2003 | 229 | 7.6 | 16% | 12% | 133 | 30.1 |
| 2004 | 378 | 12.1 | 24% | 14% | 183 | 31.1 |
| 2005 | 853 | 32.2 | 22% | 20% | 169 | 26.5 |
| 2006 | 685 | 22.1 | 28% | 20% | 244 | 31.1 |
| 2007 | 514 | 16.8 | 28% | 16% | 257 | 30.6 |
| 2008 | 545 | 16.9 | 30% | 16% | 258 | 32.2 |
| 2009 | 295 | 9.8 | 24% | 11% | 183 | 30.2 |
| 2010 | 229 | 8.2 | 24% | 6% | 149 | 28.0 |
| 2011 | 381 | 11.9 | 21% | 16% | 218 | 32.1 |
| 2012 | 522 | 18.7 | 21% | 8% | 193 | 27.9 |
| 2013 | 907 | 31.1 | 33% | 14% | 266 | 29.2 |
| 2014 | 331 | 12.3 | 26% | 19% | 151 | 26.9 |
| 2015 | 186 | 7.5 | 21% | 14% | 102 | 24.9 |
| 2016 | 201 | 7.1 | 29% | 11% | 120 | 28.3 |
| 2017 | 196 | 7.9 | 27% | 21% | 118 | 24.8 |
| 2018 | 480 | 16.0 | 22% | 9% | 128 | 29.9 |
| 2019 | 241 | 9.3 | 21% | 14% | 146 | 25.9 |
| 2020 | 87 | 2.9 | 7% | 10% | 51 | 30.0 |
| 2021 | 68 | 2.2 | 11% | 8% | 51 | 31.5 |
| 2022 | 300 | 9.8 | 27% | 19% | 156 | 30.7 |
| 2023 | 116 | 4.0 | 24% | 11% | 71 | 28.8 |
| 2024 | 83 | 3.2 | 15% | 7% | 58 | 26.3 |
| 2025 | 122 | 3.2 | 16% | 10% | 87 | 37.6 |
| 2026 | 97 | 3.8 | 14% | 8% | 47 | 25.3 |

## Sources

- [UK Parliament, Hansard archive: digitised debates from 1803 to 2004 (XML)](https://www.hansard-archive.parliament.uk/)
- [UK Parliament, Historic Hansard, 1803–2005](https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/index.html)
- [mySociety, TheyWorkForYou: ParlParse data (XML by sitting day)](https://parser.theyworkforyou.com/hansard.html)
- [UK Parliament, Hansard: the official search and its timeline](https://hansard.parliament.uk/)
- [E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. II (1875): Treaty of Paris, 30 March 1856, arts XXII–XXV; Paris Convention, 19 August 1858](https://archive.org/details/MapOfEuropeByTreatyV2)
- [Hansard, House of Commons, 4 May 1858, vol. 150, cols 44–106: "Danubian Principalities. Address moved" (the division: 114 to 292)](https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1858/may/04/address-moved)
- [E. Hertslet, The Map of Europe by Treaty, vol. IV (1891): Treaty of Berlin, 13 July 1878, arts XLIII–XLVI; the recognition of 20 February 1880](https://archive.org/details/MapOfEuropeByTreatyV4)
- [L. Gheorghiu, on the Hungarian optants dispute and the agreements of The Hague (20 January 1930) and Paris (28 April 1930), Revista Arhivelor, 2019](https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=1234169)
- [Treaties of Peace (Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland) Act 1947 (legislation.gov.uk)](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/10-11/23/contents)
- [UK Parliament, Living Heritage: "Official report" (the history of Hansard; an official report from January 1909)](https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/parliamentwork/communicating/overview/officialreport/)
- [Hansard, House of Lords, 11 May 1981, vol. 420, cols 326–328: "Anglo-Romanian Trade" (Lord Derwent's question on the spelling)](https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1981/may/11/anglo-romanian-trade)
- [The National Archives, WORK 21/310: state visit of President Nicolae Ceaușescu, 13–16 June 1978](https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11296298)
- [Office for National Statistics, Census 2021, table TS012 (country of birth); 2011: table QS203EW](https://www.ons.gov.uk/datasets/TS012/editions/2021/versions/1)
- [Open Parliament Licence v3.0](https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright-parliament/open-parliament-licence/)

## Read on, on this site

- [Roumania, Rumania, Romania: how English spelled one country's name, year by year](https://mariuscomper.uk/roumania-rumania-romania/en/): The same change of name, counted in books and newspapers, with the rulings behind it: the answer to Lord Derwent's question.
- [Britain and Romania: the links between two countries, on two maps at one scale](https://mariuscomper.uk/britanie-romania/en/): From Dacian soldiers on Hadrian's Wall to the 2021 census.
- [Romania in China's People's Daily: eighty years of Romania–China relations](https://mariuscomper.uk/romania-china/en/): The same method, another witness: how often the People's Daily named Romania, month by month.

Text and count: Marius Comper. Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0. Data from 2001 on come from ParlParse (mySociety, TheyWorkForYou).