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