The Express.
London, England, 1853-07-08 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 8, 1853.

FRENCH REPLY TO THE NESSELRODE

NOTE.

La Presse publishes an analysis of an important
document, the response of M. Drouin do Lhuys to the
note of M. de Nesselrode. 'rho note is very long,
Eke that which it is designed to refute. M. Droutn
do Lhuys commences by noticing that, according to
the Russian statement of the case, tho mission of
Prince Menchikoff had but ono object, the settlement
of the differences relative to the rights of different
communions in the Holy Places, and that the distri-
bution of these rights has been effected in a satisfac-
tory manner. Hence, he concludes, the question
which is now in debate is quite a new one, for
it has nothing to do with rights claimed at
Jerusalem or Bethlehem, while it has everything
to do with the independence and the sovereignty of I
the Sultan. How can it be pretended that in order
to guarantee possession of to a or three sanctuaries
to Christians of the Greek church it is necessary to
extend over the whole empire an official protection,
which substitutes the moral authority of the Empetor
of Russia for that which belongs legitimately to the
Sultan ? What condition does there exist between
two facts so different, and of which the greater is
made an appendage or necessary consequence of the
less? M. Dronin.de Lhuys then analyses the Nes-
selrode note, and finds three orders of arguments,
namely, treaties invoked, historical analogies esta-
blished, and grievances alleged.
Of the last he says, Russia reproaches the Porte
with having failed in respect. The French cabinet
readily admits that it is for every government to
judge for itself what its dignity requires. But still
the reparation ought always to bear some proportion
to the offence. Ordinarily, excuses or regrets eon-
, stituto the reparation of an offence of merely formal
character. Never until now have we seen one soee-
reign require another in such a case to abandon his
moral influence over tho most considerable portion of
his subjects.
If Russia makes a grievance of the tergiversation
I of the Porte in the matter of the Holy Places, Francs
might with equal justice prefer the like complaints.
It, however, has not done so, because it made a con-
siderate allot; once for the embarrassment of a power
which, impelled by two contrary' currents of equal
force, thought to preserve equilibrium by contracting
contradictory obligations. M. Drouin de Lhuys then
enumerates the various conventions upon which
France might have founded demands as imperious as
those now preferred by Russia, and con-
cludes if, then, the intentions of France
had been less conciliatory —if she had not
been penetrated by the idea that none of the parties
who signed the convention of July 13, 1841, could
employ its anterior rights at the risk of compromis-
ing the repose which the collective guarantee of the
powers was to assure to the Ottoman empire, she
would have had the right not only to oppose to the
demands of Prince Menchikoff those reserves which
are constantly employed in diplomacy, but also to
Employ menaces in her turn.
But France has done nothing of this kind, and her,
moderation, besides removing from her all responsi-
bility for the present crisis, gives her the right of
hoping that the sacrifices which she has made to
maintain tranquillity in the East will not be lost, and
that the cabinet of St. Petersburg moved by analo-
gous considerations will also find a means of conci-
liating its pretensions with the sovereign preroga-
tives of the Sultan, and to determine otherwise than
by force a difference in which so many parties are in-
terested.