[Being the fifth part of a series of Studies on the Eastern Question. The preceding parts appeared in the January, April and July numbers of the Journal for 1911, and the January number for 1912.] From the foregoing explanations, it will be seen that in the Turko-Bulgarian arrangement relative to the question of independence, less care was taken in regulating according to juridical principles the transmission of the attributes of sovereignty than in an effort to reach a financial compromise capable of conciliating opposing interests. We have in particular considered the property of the public domain as a real property for which the emancipated State must refund the accumulated outlay. This is a curious idea for our times, when we have lost the habit of looking at the public power in the light of patrimoniality. But this conception is self-explanatory, if we but remember that we are in the Orient, in Turkish territory where the coining of the attributes of sovereignty has always been the rule, where the principles of the Middle Ages have survived longer than anywhere else. And these conditions are self-explaining if we think of the persisting uncertainty of the nature and the real meaning both of the Treaty of Berlin and of the union of 1885 regarding Bulgaria and Rumeiia. From all these conditions, there issues an impression of indecision and of archaism.