The Express.
London, England, 1853-09-24 00:00:00

ANOTHER RUSSIAN NOTE.

"Examination of the Three Mtxlifizations which the
Ottoman Porte has introduced into the Austrian

Note.

" 1. The projet of Vienna declares, 'lf at all times
the Emperors of Russia have borne witness to their
active solicitude fur the maintenance of the privileges
and immunities of the orthodox Greek church in the
Ottoman Empire, the Sultana have never refused to
consecrate them again by solemn acts.' this pas-
sage has been modified as follows :—' If at all times
the Emperors of Russia have borne witness to their
active solicitude for the worship of the orthodox
Greek church, the Sultans have never ceased to watch
over the maintenance of the immunities and privi-
leges of that worship and of that church in the Otto-
man Empire, and to consecrate them again --.'
" These words, 'in the Ottoman Empire,' and
these, ' the maintenance of the immunities and pri-
vileges, ,Sze.: aro suppressed in order to be placed
below, and to be applied exclusively to the Sultans.
This suppression takes away the whole signification,
and even the entire sense of the mutilated pastsige;
for nobody denies to the Sovereigns of Russia their
active solicitude far the faith which they profess
themselves, and which is that of their subjects. That
which it was wished not to recognise is, that at all
times Russia has shown an active solicitude for its co-
religioNists in Tenkev, and for the maintenance of
their religious franchises, and that the government is
resolved to adhere to that solicitude, and to preserve
,
tnose privileges intact.

" The turn given to the phrase is so much the
more unacceptable, because, by the expressions which
follow, there is attributed to th. Sultans more than
solicitude for the orthodox worship. It is affirmed
that they have never ceased to watch over the main-
tenance of these immunities and privileges, and to
confirm them by solemn acts. The facts are diamet-
rically contrary to Al hat is here affirmed ; and, con-
sidering what has taken place more than once lately,
and especially in the affair of the Holy Places, we
are forced to seek a remedy fur them by requiring
more positive guarantees for the future.
" If we consent to acknowledge that the Ottoman
gover ;ment has never ceased to watch over the
maintenance of the privileges of the Greek church,
what then becomes of the compaiuts which we
have raised against it? We should be ourselves ad-
mitting by it that we have no subt,t.intinl wrongs,
that the mission of Prince Menschileoff was without
motive, and, in a word, that the mite which has been
addressed to us is itself superfluous.

" 2. The omission and additions of words, which
are made here with a striking affectati n, have evi-
dently the object of enfeebling the treaty of Kai-
nardji, whilst assuming the appearance of confirming
it. The wording of the note first adopt( dat Vient.o
was, Faith to the letter and to the spirit of the sti-
pulations of the treaties of Kainardji and Adrianople,
relative to the protection of the Christian worship,
the Sultan regards it as due to his honour to
preserve from all attack the immunities and privi-
leges accorded to the orthodox church.' The reading
which would turn aside the spirit of the treaty, that
is to say from the general principle laid down in the
Bth article telative to the maintenance of immunities,
applies to the view which we had expressed, and to
which we still hold; fur, in our opinion, the promise
to protect a worship and its churc es comprises
within it the maintenance of the immunities which
they possess. The two things are inseparable.
This reading, first adopted at Vienna, was after-
wards subjected at London and at I'dris to a modi-
fication ; and if at that time we did not raise any
objection, as we had the right to do, it was not that
we made any illusion of the sense of the change. We
perfectly comprehended the difference made between
two points, which in respect to us aro inseparably
uited. But the distinction was indicated in &manner
so delicate that, in the spirit of conciliation, and in
the desire to arrive as soon as possible at a solution,
we admitted the reading which from that moment we
have considered as invariable.

" These motives of condescension are no more appli-
cable to the new changes which have been made in
the same passage at Constantinople. The line of demar-
cation between the two objects is too strictly traced
to enable us to admit those changes without disown-
ing all that we have said and written. The mention
of the treaty of Kainardji becomes superfluous, and
its confirmation without object, from the moment in
which it is ceased to apply the general principle to
the maintenance of the religious immunities of the
Christian worship. It is with this end that these
two words have been suppressed the letter and the
spirit.' They bring forward without any necessity
the fact that the protection of the Christian
worship, is exercised by tho Porte, as if we
raise the pretension to exercise ourselves that
protection in the States of the Sultan ; and
as they omit at the same time to remember that,
according to the letter of the treaty, this protection
is a promise made by the Sultan—an obligation
accepted by him—it would appear that they desired
to question the right which we have to see to the
punctual fulfilment of that promise.
" 3. The modification introduced into this passage
of the Austrian note is especially. inadmissible. The
Ottoman government would bind itself only to allow
the orthodox worship to participate in the advan-
tages which it would accord to other reli-
gious communities, subjects of the Porte. But
from the moment in which these communities,
catholic or others, should not be constituted of native
persons, bat of foreign priests and lairs (and this is
the case in almost all the convents, hospitals, semi-
naries, and bishoprics of 'he Latin rite in Turkey),
from the moment, we say, in which it should please
the Porte to accord to these establishments new ad-
vantages and privileges, the orthodox communities
would not, according to the words sought to be in-
troduced into the note, have the right to demand the
same favour for themselves, nor Russia to engage
herself for them.

" The ill-disposed intention of the Ministers of
the Porte will become still more evident if we indicate
the example of a possible case. Let us suppose the
probable case of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem,
the last appointed, receiving from the Porte pri-
vileges which the Greak Patriarch has not. Every
demand on the part of the last would be repelled,
because ho is the subject of the Porte. The same
objection might be taken by the Ottoman ministry
in that which concerns the catholic establishments in
Palestine, as soon as a new advantage—not men-
tioned in the last Orman---should be accorded to
them, to the detriment of the native communities."