The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-14 00:00:00

FEDRUARY 14, 1857. cipalities, Russia would at this moment, and in virtue of the non-fulfilment of her engagements, be the only rower which would retain possession of territory which, in accordance with the treaty, was to be evacuated. . . With regard to the new town of Bolgrad, her Ma jesty's Government must remind the Cabinet of St. Petersburg that the only authentic records of what passed among the plenipotentiaries at I'aris are the protocols of the Conference (protocols of the sixth and seventh conference.) But the plenipotentiaries of Rus sia, having specially considered the line of boundary to be traced in Bessarabia with reference to the bearing it would have on the interests of the Bulgarian colony, deliberately proposed to the Conference to adopt a line which would have consigned to Moldavia the new Bolgrad situated to the south of the Val de Trajan. It is true that at the meeting of the Congress on the 10th of March (Protocol 7), when this line was being traced in the manner agreed to by the Russian Plenipotentiaries, viz., to the north of the Bolgrad (Taback), they requested that the line should pass south of that town, as it was the chef lieu of the Bulgarian colony, which the Emperor of Russia wished to keep united; and this request was assented to because the geographical situation of Bolgrad- Taback, as pointed out upon the map, showed that a compliance with it would make no important diffe rence in the frontier that was to be assigned to Mol davia, and because a line so drawn would not inter fere with the unanimous decision of the plenipoten tiaries that Russia should be removed from all contact with the Danube; but if the town of New Bolgrad now claimed had been marked on the map, and had been stated to be the town intended by the Russian Plenipotentiaries, there can be no doubt whatever that the request of the Russian Plenipotentiaries to have the line drawn south of that town would have met with a refusal, because by so drawing the line Moldavia would have been deprived of an available frontier, and Russia would have obtained a water communication with the Danube. A line drawn im mediately south of Bolgrad-Taback would leave suf ficient apace between that town and Lake Yalpuck, and, according to the terms of Article 20, would ascend by the river of Yalpuck. A line drawn south of New Bolgrad must terminate in the lake itself, and the Russian commissioners, when instructed to claim that town, naturally demanded that the line should be drawn, not up the river, but through the thalweg of the lake, and any detailed argument to show that such was not the intention of the Congress, as recorded in Article 20, would be needless. . _ In the note delivered to me by Count Chreptowitch, the map used by the Congress is said not to have been a Russian map, but to have been furnished by the French Government. But I must observe that the map in question was the French copy of the map constructed by the Russian Etat-Major, and bears the title, " Carte de la Russie, d'apres la carte de I'Etat-Majcr Russe;" and as no doubt was thrown upon its authenticity at the time by the Russian Ple nipotentiaries, and as that map alone was used for tracing the whole of the new Bessarabia,' frontier, it is too late to object to it because it contains no men tion of the town to which Russia has since laid claim. To admit that claim would be at once to abandon the principle on which the Congress proceeded with respect to the exclusion of Russia from water com munication with the Danube, and to convert into a practical nullity the cession of all that part of sou thern Bessarabia which lies east of Lake Yalpuck, and which then would become a mere enclave within the Russian territory. Her Majesty's Government are informed that the River Rsssida, which forms the communication between Lake Yalpuck and the Danube, is of con biderable depth, and that the gunboat flotilla which was maintained by the Russians at Ismail was generally moored during winter in that river; but at all events the commissioners during their last visit to New Bolgrad were eye-witnesses to a very considerable quantity of large timber being brought from the Danube on rafts of great dimensions, and capable of carrying very heavy weights. Is it, then, reasonable to suppose that the Con gress would t'ous have relinquished the important principle they had established and determined upon, merely in order to leave to Russia the chef lieu of the Bulgarian colony, seeing that the administrative establishment of that colony might easily be removed by the Russian Government to some other place more central and convenient than a town which would be at the extreme edge of the Russian territory ? But the application was made upon grounds not borne out by the fact. The town of Ohl Bolgrad was asked for by the Russian Plenipotentiaries because, as they stated, it is the head-quarters of the Bulgarian colony, and the Emperor of Russia was anxious to keep the head-quarters town and the rest of the colony united. But what is the fact? Su far from the whole of the Bulgarian colony remaining with Russia, it appears, by the arrangement which at that very moment had been agreed to by the Russian THE PRESS. Plenipotentiaries, more than one-half of the colony, setting New Bolgrad out of the question, was to be ceded to Moldavia. In the presence of such facts it surely can neither be for the dignity nor the honour of Russia to persist in a demand so ill-founded, or to desire that the Congress should be reassembled to decide a point which admits of no dispute. Her Majesty's Government have objected to this reassembling of the Congress, because, among the reasons, it would tend to strengthen the suspicion entertained of the ulterior designs of Russia, which her Majesty's Government are for themselves anxious to lay aside, and which it is important for the har mony and good understanding of the nations of Europe not to revive. But her Majesty's Government, being sincerely de sirous tr adopt conciliatory policy where no para mount interests preclude concession, would be pre pared, with a view to put an end to the painful discussion which has too long been carried on, to defer to the representations of Russia in regard to the point at which the boundary should turn off from the upper water of the Yalpuck river to the Pruth. Although satiAied that in regard to this part of the boundary they have contended for nothing more than what the terms of the treaty authorised, they are ready to renounce their claims in that quarter in return for the renunciation by Russia of the claim she has put forward in regard to the new Bolgrad. Her Majesty's Government earnestly recommend this solution of the question to the consideration of the Russian Government. No meeting of the pleni• potentiaries or Congress, with all the inconvenience and risk to which such a meeting would give rise, is required to settle the lifficulties which now impede the execution of the treaty. But, much more than this, such an arrangement would replace the rela tions between England and Russia on a footing of cordiality and goodwill, and would thereby contri bute to hasten the arrival of the period to which her Majesty's Government earnestly look forward, when all traces of the late unhappy differences between the two countries, and all recollection of past hostilities, may be wholly obliterated and effaced. Your lordship will read and give a cony of this despatch to Prince Gortschakoff.—l am, lc yours, CLARENDON. THE WAR IN PERSIA. A TELEGRU'HIC despatch via Paris from Constanti nople, Feb. 7, contains intelligence of importance The English, under Chamberlayne, have entered Cabul, marching with an Aff4han army, under Dust Mohammed, on Herat. A reinforcement of 700 men from Bombay has arrived at Bushire. The truth of this statement is, of course, open to doubt until confirmed. The reports of the conduct of the Government of Teheran are contradictory, but it would seem that General Milder, who conducted the siege of Herat, has been recalled in order to take command of the troops intended to cover the route into the in terior from Bushire. The Afghans about Herat and Candahar appear to have given in their submission to the Shah. A reply to our declaration of war has appeared in the Teheran Gazette of the 24th of December. The article charges the whole responsibility of the war upon the British agents, who have "repeatedly violated treaties, created embarrassments, and in fringed the authority oc the Persian Government." The rupture with Mr. Murray is charged, with respect to the Hashem affair, to his own conduct "in violation of Persian rights," and also to his constant intrigues in Affghanistan : Mr. Murray mixed himself up with the intrigues relating to AtTghanistan in generd, and to Herat in particular. And yet, according to all the treaties concluded between the two Cabinets—first, in 180 SI, with Sir Harford Jenes ; second, in ltil% with Mr. Crosley ; and third, in 1811, with Mr. Ellis—in all these existing treaties it was stipu lated that the English Government should not interfere in Persian and Afighan affairs except as a mediator with the consent of both parties. The writer then shows that Colonel Sheil, by his own intrigues in Herat, had annulled the famous unrati fied treaty, and declares that constant communication was kept up between Colonel Sheil and his agents in Herat, in direct violation of the stipulations of that treaty. The writer then makes a curious state- ment : After Mr. Shell, the chargé d'aiTaires, Mr. Thompson, even took advantage of the departure cf Mollah Akram, the secretary of the governor of Herat, to entertain him out• side the town, and to give him money and a letter for Seid Mohammed Khan. In that letter it was said : That, according to conventions agreed upon with the said secretary, held Mohammed Khan, whose intelligence and capacity are appreciated, shall receive from the agent of England, at Ilerat, the necessary arms and ammunition, and two kovirours of money (4 , 0,000 l.), on condition that the English agent shall not be excluded from the affairs of Atfghani-tan, and that all who speak the Affghan tongue shall be subject to him ; the advice is given to Seid Mohammed Khan :o send one of his sons to the Governor•(leneral of India, and he will thus obtain all that ha desires. 149 That letter is actually in the archives of the Persian Government. Although we were informed of all the steps of the Eng lish agents we tolerated them out of respect to the English alliance. lat the agents of England put no limits to their compromising conduct. After the death of Kuheudil Khan, 1)ost Mohammed Khan seized upon the town of Candahar, in defiance of the prohibition for any Government in these parts to invade a neighbouring State. Dust Mohammed was even resolved to seize upon Herat. While these events were taking place in Affghanistan the representatives of England maintained a strict silence on these questions, and caused us embarrassments on other matters. But as soon as Dost Mohammed Khan had seized Candahar (on the 4th of Itaby.el.anuel), Mr. Murray, on the 9th of the same month, broke off his intercourse with the Persian Government. The article then quotes at length the petition of the Herat _!ie for Persian assistance aga►nst Dost Moham►nell, and contrasts the treacherous conduct of these men, who afterwards accepted bribes from Dost Mohammed, and tried to massacre the Persian envoys : What was the Government to do? Was it to submit to such a degradation as not to punish such excesses? Moreover, it had before it an aggressor ready to seize upon Herat, and who, from that point, would have been a con tinual source of anxiety, and perhaps the ruin of the pro- vince of Khorassan. Under every circumstance it was the duty of the Persian Government to have a care that no foreign power should seize the said town, of which it is the sole protector. Can it be supposed that it is not Dost Mohammed Khan who wishes to seize Herat, and not Esa Khan, who calls him , and who revolts? The letters of Host Mohammed Khan, and of his son, Goulah•Haider Khan, ha% e fallen into the hands of the Persian Government, and they prove that it is Host Mohammed Khan who caused Herat to revolt, with the aid of English promises ; that English troops are marching in the direction of Nishapoor, and will reach Cabul ; that money and ammunition have been sent towards Shikapoor, and have arrived at Pichong. The writer then explains the intentions of the Per sian Government : However, the Court of Teheran, to maintain the friend ship and the alliance of England, was resolved, ever since the capture of Herat, to organise there an Affghan Govern ment according to the conventions. Still :core, it was not disinclined to give to Mr. Murray such satisfaction as was compatible with the dignity of the Persian Government. But that did not suffice; to those two demands others have been added. Lord Clarendon and Lord Redcliffe proposed those two conditions, and conferences were held with the Persian charge d'affaires at the Sublime Porte. In consequence of the new exactions, Ferouk Khan was sent with full powers, and his mission was notified to the English Ambassador. Nevertheless, before the arrival of Fetouk Khan, war was declared. On arriving at Constantinople Ferouk Khan wished to communicate with Lord Redcliffe ; he received as reply, that there were no more questions to be settled, that there was no need of conferring. With great difficulty negotiations were ultimately commencers.; but, in addition to the two points above mentioned, the Eng lish Ambassador put forward claims which were inad missible, and had nothing whatever to do with the pending questions. Ferouk Khan, who had no authority to treat on this basis, asked fur :orty days' delay to allow him to communicate with his Government; this arrangement, to which Lord Redcliffe consented, was concluded on the 26th of November, and yet on the 6th of December the English fleet attacked Bender-i Mahiguiri (the fisheries), which place was bombarded and taken. After reading these facts every man will be able to judge for himself whether it is the Persians or the English that have infringed the existing treaties. An able pamphlet in Persian has also appeared at Teheran upon the points in dispute. The writer goes minutely over the origin and history of the whole question of Herat, and asserts the right of Persia, not only to hold Herat, but to maintain a protectorate over the neighbouring Affghan tribes. THE CHINESE WAR. THE official papers connected with the late proceed ings at Canton have been published. The substance of the greater part of the papers is known already. Those despatches expressing the opinion of the Home Government upon the proceedings are only given in part. On the 10th December, 1850, Lord Clarendon writes to Sir J. Bowring I have consulted the law officer of the Crown on this matter, and I have now to state to you that 1 em of opinion that, this act of the Chinese authorities constitutes au infraction of Article IX. of the Supplementary Treaty. The only possible defence open to them appears to be, that the Arrow was not "an English merchant ship " within the true intent and meaning of the treaty; but Article XVII., Rule 1, in Supplementary Treaty, recognises and includes this particular class of vessel ; she had a British master, British colours, and papers ; and even if her licence had been improperly granted in August, 11364, this was a matter of British internal regulation, and to be dealt with by the British authorities. Lord Clarendon then maintains that it was the duty of the Chinese authorities to have communicated with the British Consul before seizing the men ; that the accidental absence of the master of the lorcha did not affect the question of the nationality of the vessel ; that the depositions of three of the