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

174 treaty of March 30 leaves the Pruth fora great part of its course as frontier of the two empires. Now, this river is one of the most considerable tributaries of the Danube. The principle really sanctioned by the Congress of Paris that of the free naviga tion of this river. The situation of Bolgrad can in no way contravene it. The Imperial Cabinet was the first to remove the slightest apprehension of this subject. As soon as it learned by its commis sioners that it was suspected of the concealed inten tion of profiting by the neighbourhood of Lake Yalpuck to keep a single boat there for the service of the Customs or the quarantine, it instantly con• scented to separate the town from the lake by a road destined to serve as the frontier line. Yet more — the Russian commissioners went so far as to propose the construction of a dyke, to separate the northern extremity of the lake from all communication with the Danube. I merely cite this fact to attest the extreme anxiety with which the Russian Govern ment has sought all the means in its power to re move from its policy, [ do not say all reproach, but even the slightest suspicion. In this point of view, in rectifying the labours of our commissioners, we have consented to show the whole of Lake Yalpuck to remain in the possession of Moldavia; that the town of Bolgrad, included in the Russian territory, should be separated from the lake by a causeway abutting on the river Yalpuck, the course of which, by the terms of Art. 20, sepa• rates the two kingdoms. It is affirmed that this line would deviate from the letter of Art. 20, and that the hamlet of Tobak would t such the course of the river much nearer than the tma of Bolgrad. This assertion is inaccurate. The h mkt, separated from the river by a marsh, is further front its course than the town itself is. It would t sus be vain to attempt to invoke the letter of the treaty for the purpose of invalidating its spirit. Our intention is, that a spirit of reciprocal good faith shall preside over the examination of the pre sent dispute. We do not allow ourselves to he ad judged the possession of a hamlet when the Congress intended to give us that of a town. The whole question reduces itself to this alternative. Here I regret to find myself obliged to disprove an assertion which the despatch of Lord Clarendon brings forward to make the plenipotentiaries of Russia contradict themselves. I shall cite word for word the passage to which this observation refers : The town of Old Bolgrad has been claimed by the pleni potentiaries of Russia, because, as they stated, it is the seat of administration of the Bulgarian colonies, and the Emperor of Russia desired that the capital should remain united with the rest of the colonies. What is the fact? So far from the whole of the Bulgarian colonies remaining to Russia, it appears that, by the arrangement to which the plenipotentiaries of Russia then consented, more than half of the colony, leaving New Bolgrad out of the question, has to be ceded to Moldavia. Two facts seem here to have escapad the attention of the principal Secretary of State. If he himself admits that the plenipotentiaries of Russia have claimed the chief town of the Bulgarian colonies, his memory is at fault when he gives this chief town the name of Old Bolgrad. The map submitted to the Congress will make him.conscious of this error. It will tell him that the town of Bolgrad marked out by our plenipotentiaries as capital, has nothing in common with the hamlet of Tooak, which is mixed up in this discussion, not to clear it up, but to confuse it. Did the Congress intend to preserve to Russia the capital of the Bulgarian colonies? Yes, or no ? This is the single question which the Cabinets have to settle. We have demanded the settlement of this dispute. We shall wait for it with the confidence which we place in the good faith of those who signed the Treaty of Paris. The second observation which presents itself to our minds in reading the despatch of Lord Clarendon, may be expressed in these terms. Admitting that the arrangement consented to by the plenipotentiaries of Russia, and ratified by the sanction of the Im perial Court, had resulted in the annexation to Mol davia of a larger portion of our Bulgarian colonies than the plenipotentiaries, when met together at the Conference believed when they concluded that arrangement, would Lord Clarendon consider it just in point of law, or reasonable in point of logic, to make this loss still more keenly felt by Russia, by depriving her, as un afterclap, of a town which the Congress intended she should retain? This town, according to an estimate be lieved to be exact, contains about 8,000 inhabitants. It possesses public institutions, churches, and schools. It forms the centre of a rural and indus trial population. For the possession of this town, which our pleuipotentiaries have claimed, and which the Congress, consenting to their requisition, has adjudged to Russia, is it now thought to substitute a hamlet never even mentioned in the Congress —a mere village, without value, population, or administrative importance ? Would this dis ingent substitution of a village for a town rterpretation of what has been indicated by the map, and ingenuous substiti be a faithful ini willed by the Cong 1111111161 THE PRESS. sanctioned by the spirit and the letter of the treaty? We cannot poisibly admit that such was the inten tion of her Britannic Majesty's Government, or of any of the powers which signed the treaty. Under this persuasion we have not hesitated to appeal frankly to their decision from the instant when the divergence of opinions which arose be tween the Commissioners surveying the frontier put an obstacle to the completion of their work. This is the place to remove an inamirate appreciation, which 1 regret to find in the despatch of Lord Cla rendon. Without either recrimination or bitterness, I shall again set forth the facts in their entire truth. The principal Secretary of State says that " if the English squadron had not re-entered the Black Sea, and the Austrian troops did not continue to occupy the Principalities, Russia, from her non-execution of her engagements, would be at this moment the sole power keeping possession of a territory which she was bound, conformably to the treaty, to evacuate." To point this assertion, Lord Clarendon affirms that Russia, in claiming what she is not authorised to possess, by the terms of Article 20, has hindered to this day the settlement of the boundaries of the frontier. Let us examine with reflection end calmness whether this argument has any foundation. First of all, it starts from a rresumption which is wanting in proof. Does Russia claim more than the treaty adjudges to her? Has the question been settled by the Cabinets which signed ? It has not. It will form the object of the conferences which are about to open. Which power was it that first insisted on the necessity of such a meeting ? Russia. IVhich powers opposed the judgment to which the Imperial Cabinet has appealed? England and Austria. This being the case, whose fault was the unfor tunate delay which has retarded for three months the completion of the work of delimitation ? Let us recal the dates. On the 18th (30th) of August, the Commis sioners•surveyors, having ended three quarters of their work, have concluded a preliminary convention which left in suspense only the resolution of two questions. To this effect they solicited the decision of their Courts. The opinions put forth by the com missioners were contradictory. The Government o: her Britannic Majesty could Lot alone be the judge of them. The treaty was the work of all the con tracting parties. It is to them that it belongs to decide in the last resort. So long as this decision shall not have been given the question of right remains intact. Certainly, there may be doubt respecting it ; but there is no infraction of the treaty as far as regards Articles 20 and 21. That is s:: :rite that the Imperial Cabinet has spontaneously offered to give over to the Mcldavian authorities the territory where the marking of the boundary is already finished, and to proceed with this cession immediately, even before the final record (acte) is signed. If Russia, for her part, has shown so much fidelity and scrupulousness in conforming to her engage ments, has the Government of her Britannic Ma je-ty fulfilled its own engagements with the same accuracy ? Has the convention relative to the closing of the Straits been observed as an ancient rula of the Ottoman empire so long as the Porte is at peace ? Has the principle of the neutralisation of the Black Sea consecrated by the Treaty of Paris been put in force The evidence of facts proves the contrary. This same truth is applicable to the occupation of the Principalities by the Austrian troops. The engagements contracted in the bosom of the Con gress do not justify it. In the interest of peace, and out of respect for a European arrangement which Russia herself has guaranteed, we thought that it was of importance to put an end to so many motives of disagreement which had supervened to our keen regret between the powers who had united together to accomplish the salutary work of a general pacification. It is with this purpose, that, by the order of the Empe. ror, I have devoted all my efforts to accelerate the moment when the plenipotentiaries of all the Cabi nets should find themselves reunited at Paris. This result is on the eve of being accomplished. We regard it as a new mark of respect paid to the autho rity of the public law of Europe, and at the same time as the addition of one guarantee the more to that system of concert and general agreement of which the principle has been sanctioned by the acts of the Congress of I'aris. The determination to which the Cabinets have now come, to give their assent to this reunion, is equally honourable for al!, reassuring for Europe, and des tined to become a new pledge of reconciliation between the powers who alike have it at heart to efface the traces of their dissension by an auspicious return to a mutual accord. I invite you, M. le Comte, to express these senti ments to the principal Secretary of State, by reading to him, and leaving with him a copy of, this despatch.—lteceive, &c., (Signed) GOBTSCUANOFFI SATURDAY, routVings in 9ariianttnt. HOUSE OF LORDS.—BfoNn►r. THE PERSIAN WAR. The Earl of CLARENDON : As my noble friend behind me (Lord Albemarle) bfis a notice on the paper in reference to Persia, I venture to appeal to him to have the goodness to put it off for a short time, as at the present moment negotiations are pending in Paris upon that subject; and only this very morning I received a communication which leads me to hope that those negotiations will be brought to a successful issue. I hope therefore my noble friend will not consider me ask ing too much in begging of him to defer his motion. The Earl of ALLEIIARLE at once withdrew his motion. JUDICIAL STATISTICS. Lord BROUGHAM laid on the table a bill for faci litating the collection of judicial statistics. THE SHEEPSHANKS COLLECTION. Lord MONTEAGLE moved for the correspondence relating to the deed of gift by which Mr. Sheep shanks had presented his pictures to the nation, and spoke in high praise of the munificent spirit which had been shown in that and simiiar donations. Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY replied, and explained the terms upon which Mr. Sheepshanks had offered his gift : Mr. Sheepshanks wishes his collection to be placed in a receptacle built for the purpose, well lighted, airy, and commodious, on the grounds at Kensington, which were purchased by the commissioners of 1851, where also the schools of art were to be placed that had been meeting hitherto in Marlborough•house. He wishes also the Minister, if he should think fit, to allow a portion of the collection to be sent into the provinces, and there exhibited for the advancement of art and design. He had expres.ed an earnest wish, although he had made it no condition of the gift, that his collection should be open on Sunday evenings for the inspection of that portion of the people who had no time to examine the pictures during the week, in order that they too might derive the advantage which was in• tended by this gift. These were the conditions attached to this most important presentation, if the Government should think proper to accept it. The correspondence Wit. 4 then laid on the table. THE YEOMANRY. The Earl of Powts moved : That an humble address be presented to her Majesty for a return showing the years since 1815 in which the yeomanry have not been assembled either for permanent duty or training and exercise ; and, also, copy of ally cir cular from the Secretary of State to the lords lieutenant of counties as to the assembling of the yeomanry during the present year. rite noble earl observed that he wished to call the attention of Lord Panmure to the fact that it was impossible for the yeomanry to be of use if they were not sufficiently Lam assembled for exercise and training. The nominal time of exercise was at pre sent eight days ; of this, one day was occupied in coming, another in going, and in the rest there was the Sunday; thus, in fact, there remained but five days of actual use. He thought that no one could dissent from him when he said that five days in two years was not a period of exercise and training suffi cient to enable either officers or men properly to dis charge their duties. He could not conceive why this corp 3 should not be called out during the present year, and he trusted that some explanation would be forthcoming on the subject. Lord PANMURE had no objection to order the re turns asked for. He thought, however, that calling out the force this year might be dispensed with. The time had gone by when the militia would be required to aid the civil power. The question of withdrawing the contingent allowance should be considered by the Government. The motion, after remarks from the Earl of Eglin ton, Viscount Dungannon, Lord Ward, and Lord L3ttelton in favour of calling out the militia this year, was then agreed to. NOTICE OF MOTION. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY gave notice of his inten tion on Monday, March 2, to bring under their lord ships' consideration the traffic in opium between the East Indies and China. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MoNDAT. EXPULSION OF MR. JAMES SADLEIR. Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD moved a resolution that Mr. James Sadleir, member for Tipperary, having been charged with frauds and fraudulent practices, and bills of indictment for misdemeanours having been Found against him, and warrants issued for his appre hension, and having failed to obey an order of this house that he should attend in his place, and having fled from justice, he be expelled the house. There could be no doubt, he observed, of the privilege or power of the house to take this course without being bound by strict technical rule.; and be recited various precedents, from 1580 to the present day, in which this power had been exerci s ed, laying particu lar stress upon the case of Mr. lit orgi Robinson, in 1732, who, having been charged sith fraudulent practices, had tied beyond the seas, sad was expelled,