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

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