LORD DUNSANY,who had given Notice of his intention to ask Her Majesty's Ministers, Whether in Article VI. of the Annex to the Convention between England and Turkey the words "Kars and the other conquests made by her in Armenia during the late war" were held to include Batoum? said, the Question would be rendered more clear if the 1st Article of the Treaty were read with the 6th of the Annex. In the 1st Article of the Treaty it was provided that if Batoum, Ardahan, or Kars should be retained by Russia, England would take a course about which there could be no misunderstanding. That might be considered as the operative clause. The 6th Article of the Annex seemed in reference to it an abrogating clause, though it must have been meant to be equivalent in its operation. In the latter it was set forth that, unless Russia restored to Turkey Kars and the other conquests made by her in Armenia during the late war, the Island of Cyprus would, under the Convention, remain in the hands of England. No doubt what was meant to be provided was, that if Russia restored all the conquests she had made from Turkey during the late war, then our engagement with Turkey would cease. The wording of the Article raised a doubt whether the engagement with Turkey might be terminated by Russia restoring only Kars and Ardahan and retaining Batoum. Could Russia call upon us to determine the Treaty with Turkey upon the ground that she had fulfilled her contingent obligation by restoring Kars and Ardahan? Batoum, not being mentioned in the Treaty, it was either described under some form of words, or else it was not alluded to at all. It could hardly be 1573 considered that Batoum came under the denomination of "conquests" made during the late war, and the people at Batoum would be very much astonished if they were told that they had been conquered. With respect to whether Batoum was properly described as being in Armenia, he had a few words to say. The explanation of the whole matter he believed to be very simple. It was that the words "other conquests" did not really occur in the Treaty itself, and that, therefore, there was an error in the transcription or transmission which would account for the difficulty. It would hardly be possible to use a more vague term than "Armenia," or a more unsatisfactory geographical designation. Some years ago they heard it said that Italy was a mere geographical expression; but he did not think that "Armenia" was even a geographical expression. It was really an obsolete historical expression, without any exact meaning. At least, that was what he gathered from the ordinary sources of information. He had consulted some authorities, accessible to most people, to ascertain whether Batoum was really in Armenia at all. No doubt those who drew the document believed that it was; but there was a wide difference between an opinion or a belief, and that sort of obvious certainty in which they could at once acquiesce. He apprehended that pretty nearly all the geographical authorities were against the idea of Batoum being in Armenia at all. If Batoum was in Armenia, then Armenia would extend to the sea-coast, Batoum being upon the coast. Certainly our English geographical authorities did not admit that Armenia extended to the Black Sea at all. In the new edition of the Encyclopœdia Britannica there was an article on "Armenia," founded upon the opinions of some of our highest authorities, in which it was stated that it reached from the Caucasus to the mountains of Kurdistan, there being no mention of the Black Sea. Batoum was spoken of as a seaport on the Asiatic shore of the Black Sea, in the territory of Trebizonde. In the Encyclopœdia Metropolitana he found that Armenia was spoken of as having been gradually reduced to a small compass, and it was added that it might now be considered as bounded by Georgia and Imeritia. At any rate, it was not said that it was 1574 bounded by the Black Sea. According to this interpretation of the term, Armenia would not reach to Batoum at all. In Chambers' cyclopœdia it was described as a high table land, and nothing was said to imply that it reached the shores of the Black Sea. This seemed to be the general view; the only exception to it being an American authority, which treated the northern boundary of Armenia as reaching to the Black Sea, but admitted that there was much uncertainty as to the boundaries. Indeed, the limits of Armenia had so often undergone change that all parties agreed it was very difficult to say which were its boundaries. To use a word of such unsettled meaning in a Treaty was a rather hazardous proceeding. He need only remind their Lordships that disputes about boundaries were more numerous than about anything else. During the present reign England had had four disputes about boundaries. True, we did not go to war about them; but then they were decided against us. In view of these circumstances, he did not think the question inopportune.
§ VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, if the Annex and the Convention were taken together, as they ought to be, there could not be any doubt about the meaning of the phrase to which the noble Lord had called attention. Indeed, when they considered that the Annex was drawn up at Constantinople itself, where what they understood by ''Armenia" was perfectly clear to their own minds at any rate, he could not conceive how a question of this nature could arise. He did not venture to enter into the details given by the noble Lord as to the geographical authorities he had cited; but, as far as he was aware, no one insisted upon Armenia not reaching to the Black Sea, because, in stating that it reached to Georgia or the Caucasus, nothing was said about the sea-coast which was called Armenian. The fact was, he believed that "Armenia" was a somewhat indistinct expression; but inasmuch as it included Trebizonde, and as Batoum was in the Pashalik of Trebizonde, it must be taken to include Batoum. In the Treaty the matter was quite clear, because the places were set out by name, Batoum being among them; and it said if any one of them was retained by Russia, the Convention with Turkey would remain in force, With respect to 1575 the other expression, in which the word "conquest" occurred, he thought his noble Friend had taken a mistaken view of that word. It was not necessary that a conquest should be directly by force of arms; and because a place might be taken from a country to which it belonged as the result of a successful war, it was hardly less a conquest by force of arms. This was so in reference to Batoum under the Preliminary Treaty of San Stefano; and, therefore, it might fairly be called a "conquest." In that way it would be seen that both documents satisfied the intention. Batoum was a conquest made by Russia, because it was surrendered in consequence of a successful war; and that it was in Armenia there could be no doubt, giving to Armenia the general meaning it everywhere received, although he was not sure that Armenia now extended to the boundaries it once had. There was nothing to show that Batoum was not now considered to be in Armenia; and he hoped no question would be raised, now or hereafter, as to the meaning of the Annex, which was to be taken and read along with the Treaty.