The Press.
London, England, 1853-07-16 00:00:00

of his Majesty the Emperor Nicholas, has sent to all the
legations of Russia, has given an importance to this docu-
ment equivalent to a manifesto addressed to the whole of
Europe, insomuch so that l have considered it necessary
to inform you of the general reflections its perusal has sug-
gested to my mind. 1 shall remark, in the first place, that
from the declaration itself of the differences of Russia with
the Porte, such as the Count de Nesselrtxle represents
them, it results that the mission of the Prince Menschi-
kotf to Constantinople had only one object, namely, the
arrangement of the difficulties relating to the repartition
of the Holy Places of Jerusalem between the different
Chtistian communions, and that this object had been
effected to the entire satisfaction of the Cabinet of St.

Petersburg.
" A totally new question has then arisen, in no manner
connected with that of Jentsalem, and touching on all
sides on the independence and sovereignty of the Sultan.
This is the opinion already formed at Constantinople itself
by the reffesentattives of France, Austria, I treat Britain,
anal Prussia. 11-hence the pretension. in fact, that. to as-
sure to the Christians of the uaiental rite the possession
of some sanctuaries already allotted them, they must be
covered over• the whole extent of the MNtonuut empire by
an official protection. substituting the moral authority of
the Emperor of Russia in the place of that which emanates
legitimately from the Sultan? What affinity can exist lw-
tweett facts so different? and in what way OM the more
important be considered as 1111 appellth%., as a necessary
consequence of that which is the lesser?
To strengthen its pretensions• the Cabinet of St.
Petersburg invokes its ancient treaties with the Porte,
revives historical analogies, and displays its injuries.
These, sir, are the three lines of argument which I pro-
pose to pass in review as succinctly as possible.
" When we examine the treaties which Russia has con-
cluded with Turkey, we final that, if ocensionally she has
stipulated in favour of the subjects of the Sultan, these last
belonged either to some Ito winces which through the chances
of war had momentarily been lost to the Porte, and te the
restoration of which conditions might he imosed, or tat
some provinces which, during the conflict, had been com-
promised with the I Montan tiovernment, and who, by
policy and humanity, it was necessary to protect against
the resentment of the Pattie.
" None of these stipulations had the character of gene-
rality which at this day it is attempted to to given to them :
and the treaty of lttehuk•lninarlji especially confers on
Russia a right of protection, limited anal defined, over a
church, ministered to by Russian priests, which it was
sought to erect in the outskirts of 4 inlets. This. assuredly,
aloes not illeßll that preetically. and in the natural course of
events, the Court of St. Petersburg should feel itself called
npon tat interest itself for the Christians of the s ire•k rite,
What form in Turkey in Enmity the majority of the popu-
lation. But if the Porte, ott its side. found itself bound to
consider the sympathies of Russia fair the Eastern limn+,
it has not, up to this time, sttbscrilwal tsl nny engagement
which takes away the merit of its tolenmee, and imposes,
instead of duties freely fulfilled with regard to its own
subjects, obligations towards a foreign Ismer. Here is the
whole question, anal in recapitulating simply the terms all
its importance is thereby demonstrated.
"The analogies to which the circular of the Count Jo
Nesselrode refers, do tiny apply themselves better to the
actual situation ?
" If between the primes of the Holy Empire at the p►eriosd
of the reform treaties relating to the exercise of the new
religion in their possessions were signed, it is to be taken
into consideration, firstly, that this empire was au assn•
elation of states governed by one and the same chief; and.
sensually, that the transactions in that case were the result
of long intestine wars, or of political combinations in which
the elective character of the imperial dignity necessarily
exer•isseerd a great influence.
" Touching our awn capitulat- s with Turkey, yon
know, sir, that they never gave us the right of podeetion
over the Catholic subjects of the Sultan. If France has
been enabled tat rendet tat this infinitely small fraction of
the population of the East some services of the same
nature as those which Russia is justly prowl to have
rendered tat her co-religionists, her protection direct and
ifffilthd was never exercised except in favour of foreign
establishments administered to by priests, also foreigne►s,
anal whose spiritual chief resides at Ramie. The protection
of Russia, on the contowy, would be applied ton clergy curt•
pee al of the subjects of the Sultana, and bicru•chally
governed by a patriarch who depends also on the Porte.
There can be, then, no possible assimilation between the
position of the two powers. I quote here, however, an
important passage from a memoir of the Count ale Saint•
Priest. Ambassador of King Louis XVI. at Constantinople
from 17fis to 17+,0, and which defines Meetly the nature of
atm. preteetorship. The Count de Saint-hiest expresses
himself thus:—
" ".1 he zeal of our Kings has been rewarded by the title
of Protection of the Catholic Religion its the Levant ; lint
it is illusive, anal calculated to mislead those who alit not
twangs deeply into the matter. Never have the Sultans
anal' hail an idea that the French Monarchs believed them-
selves antherised tip interfere in the religion of the subjects
of the Porte There is no prince (says very wisely one of
my predecessors in a memoir on this matter), fiowever
close may be his uuaiult with mealier S 4 wereigu. whet sandal
permit hint to meddle with the religion of his subjects.
The Turks are as susceptible as others or this head.
"' It is easy to understand that Framer, never having
treated with the Porte but upon a iliendly leading. never
could luny Unposed obligations odious in their nature.
Thus the first point of my instructions directed me tat
aaid everything that could dissatisfy the Pawn. in giving
too great an extension to the capitulations treading of
religiain.'
"'this citation ennblas4 me to dispense with all other
explanation upon a point which is set at rest lay such
incontestable authanitv.
•• Thus, then, air, neither ancient treaties nor the auk.