The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-21 00:00:00

FEBRUARY 21, 1857. be behindhand in igndiCating the flag of his country. Each fresh case will act as an in centive to further punctiliousness, till at last we shall become public nuisances, and invite a coalition against us among every people that has a farthing to lose by our aggressions, or a single shred of honour to defend from our insolence. Touching the bright idea of Sir J. BOWRINO, that this was an excellent opportunity of re covering our dormant right of entry to the town of Canton, we can only say that it seems to us both ungenerous and impolitic. We will grant that Sir GEORGE BONHAM never sur rendered the claim. But he consented that it should remain in abeyance, owing to the inex pugnable dislike of the Cantonese to accede to any such arrangement. Obviously the rational and becoming policy was, therefore, to postpone the demand for its concession until such time as the native prejudices had, by long intercourse with us, been softened down ; but to insist upon it at the very moment when these feelings are naturally highly exasperated is one of those happy im provements of an occasion which seems pecu liar to Lord PALMERSTON'S policy. We fear it is the old story, that we were determined to find muddy water; and, as far as making an uncommonly nice mess of it is concerned, no one can deny our success. THE BOLGRAD DESPATCHES. PRINCE GORTSCHAKOFF'S REPLY TO LORD CLARENDON. TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE COUNT DE CHREPTOMUTCH. ST. PETERSBURG, DeC. 8 ('0), 1856. Monsieur le Comte,—ln answer to the statement which your Excellency has been directed to leava with the Government of her Britannic Majesty, Lord Wodehouse has just communicated to me the despatch, a copy of which is annexed. This document contains, on the one hand, senti. ments which I share, on the other conclusions from which I dissent. I wish, M. le Comte, to re'mpitulate the principles on which we are at issue with the Government of her Britannic Majesty. I shall then call your attention to the facts which form the subject of our difference of opinion. A frank and loyal exchange of our ideas gill, I trust, facilitate the task of coming to an understanding with England in a spirit of conciliation, as well as with a mutual sentiment of tha dignity of the two countries. I fulfil an agreeable duty by commencing my pre sent task with a statement of the doctrines which establish between my views and those of Lord Clarendon a conviction common to both of us. Guided by the sentiment.; of our august master, which is the constant rule of my conduct, I frankly associate myself in the regret expressed by the Government of her Britannic Majesty at seeing that there still prevail bAween us motives of disagree ment and irritation which it would have been desirable to shroud in oblivion from the conclusion of peace. Like Lord Clarendon, I will abstain from a painful retrospect of the past. A policy of recrimination is not that with which the Cabinet of Russia is inspired. Far from that, it longs for the moment when the relations between Russia and Great Britain, freed from every recollection of ho'tility, shall be re established on a footing of goodwill and reciprocal cordiality. I accept that wish in the spirit in which Lord Clarendon utters it. I shall always be ready to join my efforts to those which he will himself employ to bring about this happy result, so necessary for the confirmation of the peace of Europe, ani so salutary to the interests, rightly comprehended, of our two countries. After having indicated to you, M. le Comte, the consi derations which establish, between the policy of her Britannic Majesty's Government and our own, an approximation which I take a pleasure in expressing, I am about, with equal frankness, to pass in review those assertions in the despatch of Lord Clarendon which leave me to regret that they are not in harmony with my convictions. THE ?EESS. I shall not insist on the controvery raised on the subject of the Isle of Serpents. Our former commu nications have already sufficiently proved that Russia does not attach to the possession of that barren islet either military importance or political interest. That declaration—spontaneously made in the month cf August last, and since repeated in our official manifesto (expose)--ba.4 announced beforehand the determination firmly fixed in the mind of our august master to cut short a sterile controversy on that dis puted point, which had its origin in the silence pre served by the Treaty of Paris. But though the dis pute was in our eyes as to its subject-matter of no value—as to the rights of it, it was otherwise. In reality, it was impossible to admit in principle that the Treaty of Paris had become the subject of an isolated interpretation. It was necessary that every Cabinet which signed it should be consulted, when it was proposed to complete, or, if 3 ou choose, rectify, their common work. Russia was the first to prove herself ready to bring to that examination the con currence of her goodwill. No one can dispute with her the merit of having herself offered the means of removing this difficulty, by deferring to the decision of the Conference of Paris. In dealing with this discussion, the Imperial Cabinet did not expect, it is true, that it would be reproached with having main tained at its own expense for nearly twenty years a lighthouse erected for the advantage of all commercial nations. All profited by it. None of them complained of it. Turkey never protested against this useful public establishment. If its foundation goes back to the first years which followed the Treaty of Adria nople, it is because at that epoch the activity of mer cantile navigation in those latitudes took a develop ment, the progress of which is attested by the pro sperity of the Danubian provinces. Certainly after having profited almost twenty years by a lighthouse, erected by Russia, without a murmur, it would be strange now to make a grievance of what has been to commerce an international advantage. Finally, to conclude this retrospective examination, may I be allowed, in passing, to call attention to this—that if the desert rock, called the Isle of Serpents, escaped the observation of the plenipotentiaries who signed the Treaties of Bucharest and Adrianople, it did not any more fix the attention of those who signed the Treaty of Paris. We noticed this omission with the express desire to repair it. But to accomplish this act with the forms required by the law of nations, we maintained, and we persist in asserting, that the con currence of all the contracting powers is indispen- sable to finally fill up in the text of the treaty a gap which no one of the interested parties had any right to supply independently without the adhesion of all the others. This same principle of law is applicable to the question raised on the subject of settling the boun daries of Bessarabia. To attain the removal of this difficulty we recognised the necessity of making an appeal to the Cabinets which took part in the signature of the treaty of the :30th of March. We thought that, united anew in the same spot, the respective plenipotentiaries would have the same sentiment of good faith and concord present Ito their memories which happily presided over the deliberations of the Congress. The remembrance of the first would, we hoped, come to the aid of that of the second. The perusal of the despatch of Lord Clarendon confirms in us that impr3ssion. lam abDut to try to reconcile the narrative of the Chief Secretary of State with that of our plenipotentiaries. To begin with: they are agreed on one first point: the determination of ti►e Congress was taken on the map produced by the French Ministry. Far from disputing the authority of that document, as Lord Clarendon has supposed, the plenipotentiaries of Russia call for it to clear up the facts as they hap pened. They invoke its testimony to prove that there was not the smallest mistake (equivoque) between the two Bolgrads, the old and the new. On the map placed under the eyes of the members of Congress, there was one town only, B igrad, and a village, Tobakskaya. No one spoke of this last spot. The starting-point of the discussion was the town, and not the village. The Congress understood and decided that the town should be preserved to Russia. But there was one place only on the map which bore the name of 80l glad. The Chief Secretary of State may easily con vince himself of it by simply inspecting the map whose authenticity he vindicates. We accept it. On both sides there is complete agreement on this point. I certify it. I affirm as well that the map, drawn on the spot by the respective commissioners, and guaranteed collectively by their signatures, designates, like the French map, the town Bolgrad, and the village Tobak. That is averred by the delegates themselves. One difference only exists between the old topographical lines given on the maps, and the new ones, which is, that, during this lapse of time, the town of Bolgrad, enlarged by build ings and cultivation of more recent date, has gradu ally extendeditself towards the shores of the lake. This local extension was unknown to the plenipotentiaries of • 173 Russia. But they were perfectly in the right when they insisted on retaining Bolgrud, as being the capital of our Bulgarian colonies, as they declared at the Conferences. The commissioners to determine the boundary have been able to convince themselves that this declaration was correct. The fact can neither be denied nor deprived of its significance. It remains ours by the unanimous adhesion of the Congress. I nm anxious, on this subject, to do justice to the perfect accuracy with which Lord Clarendon ac knowledges that our plenipotentiaries, in publishing without reserve how important it was for us to remit. the possession of the town of Bolgrad, declared that this spot " was the capital of our Bulgarian colo nies." This fact, the most essential of all, because it is the root of the quarrel, acquires, by Lord Cla rendon's own evidence, an explicit confirmation. Besides, I appreciate the good faith with which Lord Clarendon bears witness that this demand of our plenipotentiaries obtained the assent of the Congress. On his side he will agree with me that this adhesion can only be referred to the one spot designated on the map by the name of Bolgrad ; town which our plenipotentiaries had declared to be the capital of our colonies, but not to the village of Tobakskaya, which is not the capital. Alter having ascertained the troth on this point, I come to another passage of Lord Clarendon's despatch, where it is easy for me to reconcile his recollections altogether with those of our plenipo tentiaries. At the sitting of the 10th of March, these last proposed in effect a line of demarcation, which, departing from the confluence of the Sarata with the Pruth, ascended the course of this river to the spot named Saratzika, descended the course of the Yalpuck to the valley of Trajan, and followed this valley as far as the Lake Salzik, to end at the Lake Alabies. Had this plan been adopted, doubtless, as Lord Clarendon says, the town of Bolg,rad, situated to the south of the valley of Trojan, would have remained without the Russian territory. But the plan of delimitation projected by the plenipotentiaries of Russia has not obtained the suf frage of the Congress. Two counter propositions have been made. The object of the first was, to annex to the Moldavian territory the triangle formed between the course of the Sarata and a straight line drawn from Saratzika to a place situate on the Pruth opposite (a la hauteur), Katimory. The object of the second counter-proposition was to prolong the frontier line from Lake Alabies up to one kilometre to the east of Lake Bourns Sola. The plenipotentiaries of Russia decided, during the sitting, to give their consent to both these pro positions. But, in return for their adhesion, they demanded that the town of Bolgrad, the capital of the Bulgarian colonies, should be included in the Russian territory. The members of the Congress, appreciating this consideration, gave their unanimous adhesion to it. To carry it out, it has been necessary to turn the line first marked out from the valley of Trajan. This is, as laid down by the text of Article 20, " that the frontier line should be traced to the south of Bolgrad." In adopting this decision, it is evident that the members of the Congress kept in view the town of Bolgrad which they had under their eyes, but not the hamlet of Tobaksicuya, of which no mention was made in the sitting of the 10th March. Here the letter of the treaty cuts the question in dispute. If the plenipotentiaries met at the Congress had meant to preserve to Russia the possession of the hamlet and not of the town, the text of Article 20 would have run, " that the frontier line should be traced to the south of Tobakskaya," instead of which it drew the line to the south of Bolgrad. Neither the mean ing nor the expression are ambiguous. For, I repeat, in framing the text of Article 20 the members of the Congress hsd on the map only one Bolgrad before their eyes. At present, if it were desired to discuss afresh the territorial arrangement consented to on both sides, which has served as a basis in framing the 20th Article, the result would be that Moldavia would pre serve the triangle between the Sarata and the Pruth, and in addition the Lake of Bourna•Sola, whilst Russia would be deprived of the possession of the town of Bolgrad, the condition on which our plenipotentiaries consented to the two counter-propositions made to them. The transaction would be falsified in its prin ciple. One side would keep what it had acquired ; the other would lose what had been granted to it, and what it had accepted in good faith. I have thus reduced to the most simple terms the history of what has taken place. One observation it remains for me to add. Lord Clarendon's despatch attempts to show that if the town of Bolgrad re mained included in the Russian territory the position of this town would be in contradiction with the principle in virtue of which Russia was to remain separated from all river communication with the Danube. The acts of the Congress of Paris do not furnish proof of such a conclusion. We find no trace of it in the protocols. On the contrary, the