The Sun.
London, England, 1853-09-22 00:00:00

( From the Times. )
In another part of our impression will be found
a dispatch from Count Nesselrode to Baron
Meyendorff, expressing some of the reasons alleged
by the Czar for refusing to accede to the Turkish
modifications. This document will not require
much comment. Before the first Note of the
Vienna Conference had been accepted by the
Court of St. Petersburg, the Emperor of Russia
stood absolutely without an excuse in the eyes of
the world for his audacious outrage upon Turkish
independence and European law. Up to this
stage 'of the dispute there was no room for mis-
understanding. Whatever offence might have
been conveyed by the previous transactions of
the Sultan with the Greek and Latin churches bad
been plainly condoned. On th s,. which was the
sole point of controversy, the Russian Ambassador
of Constantinople had acknowledged his entire
satisfaction. He then produced on behalf of his
Sovereign a new demand concerning the same
subject, and it is from the rejection of this demand
by the Porte that all the consequences now visible
have directly followed. The case of Russia, there-
fore, turns exclusively ,upon this requisition, and
manifestly fails ; for, whatever may have been the
character or purport of the application itself, it
has been unanimously decided by the statesmen of
Europe that the concession required was not such
as one Government was entitled to exact from
another as independent as itself. For argument's
sake we may admit that the motives of Russia
were disinterested, and that her views were really
.ancl_trilly limited to the protection of Christian
congregations. Nevertheless, as these congrega-
tions were subject to an independent Power, it was
not competent to Russia thus to interfere. In so
far as, existing engagements went, the Czar was
undoubtedly entitled to require an observance of
their conditions, and, if the question had con-
cerned only such points, there would have been no
room for European remonstrance. But it is per-
fectly notorious that the Russian Government
alleged no such reasons for its proceedings. It did
not pretend that the Greek Christian subjects of
the Porte had received less consideration in any
respect than had been provided by treaty. Its
demand was for something altogether new. We
may assume, if we please, that the recent transac-
tions between France and the Porte, coupled with
the sudden changes of Turkish policy towards the
Greek and Latin Churches, had convinced the
Czar that his existing privileges were less secure
or less satisfactory than he had conceived them to
be. We may suppose that, with a pure and single-
minded intention, he desired to obviate the
recurrence of any such troubles by placing the
position of the Greek Church in Turkey and his
own protectorate on a clearer understanding than
before. This is taking the most favourable view
of the Russian case • but even in this view it is
insupportable. Whatever were the treaties be-
tween Turkey and Russia, they were at any rate
fixed on record ; nor could the Czar possess any
possible title to demand their modification or ex-
tension under menace of war. If they were less
serviceable to him than he had imagined, that was
the fault of those who signed them. There they
stood ; and neither of the contracting parties could
be warranted in peremptorily demanding that
they should be changed. Russia, we may be per-
fectly assured, would not have consented to any
fresh interpretation of these engagements if they
had proved unexpectedly prejudicial to the sove-
reignty of the Porte, nor had she any right to pre-
fer such a demand when they proved unsatisfac-
tory to herself. Very possibly, the requisition
might he justifiable in itself—that is to say, it
might have tended to place matters on a better
footing, and have even been conducive to future
peace. We may assume this for the sake of argu-
ment ; but the assumption contains no excuse for
the conduct of Russia. The vital point of the case
is this—that the requisition, however described,
was indisputably one which the Sultan, in the ex-
ercise of his independent sovereignty, was compe-
tent to reject ; and the public crime of Russia
consists in her endeavour to enforce compliance by
an armed invasion of Turkish territory. The de-
mand itself might have been reasonable, but it
was flagrantly unlawful to back it by menace and
maintain it by acts of war.
It follows directly from this plain conclusion that
Russia can have no title to object to the substance
of the modifications suggested by the Porte to the
original Vienna Note, for this substance concerns
that point exclusively on which Russia has no
rights at all. To the independent action of Turkey,
under the circumstances of the case, it will be seen
that exceptions are taken with great plausibility ;
for when the Czar had consented to do all that the
Four Powers thought fit to ask, he might fairly
argue that these Four Powers should ask no more.
But, in so far as he maintains that the limitations
imposed by Turkey upon the terms of his protecto-
rate, or the interpretation given by the Sultan to
the Note of the Conference, are objectionable in
themselves, he has no standing ground, for he is
destitute of any right to exact any such terms at all.
Whatever he obtains on this head, whether by award
of the Conference or concession of the Porte, is so
much gain, and gain wholly undeserved ; nor has
he any warrant whatever for demurring to its
amount. This point Count Nesselrode's Note
adroitly leaves without much exposition ; but, in
so far as the Emperor excepts to the restrictions
placed on his own demands, he acts without justifi-
cation, and the Conference is fully competent in all
respects to affix its own sense to those terms of its
original Note which affect these pretensions of
Russia to authority within the dominions of the

Porte.
We trust the unmistakeable rights of the case
may contribute to its pacific solution, but all
the intelligence received from Constantinople is
ominous, as our readers may observe, of a different
result. The truth is, that the Ottomans them-
selves, as recently known to Christian Govern-
ments, have now been superseded by tribes in-
finitely more fanatical and barbarous. The Turk-
ish invasion of Europe has been repeated anew,
and the immediate subjects of the Sultan, partially
civilized by commerce and training, are now ab-
sorbed in Asiatic hordes who are now repeoplmg
European Turkey with the veritable savages of the
East. Already it is understood that the lives. of
Christians, and. especially of French and EngliE4h,
are insecure in the capital of that State which
these Christians are so laboriously protecting, and
it is scarcely anticipated that any terms of peace
will prove acceptable to those ferocious multi-
tudes, whose very breath is war. It is super-
fluous to remark upon tha plausibility which these
circumstances must confer on the pretensions of
the Czar. Though Russia is really responsible
for this, as for every other incident of a dispute
provoked by herself, she will be enabled to point
to the notorious insecurity of Christian congre-
gations among tribes like those as evidence of
the effectual protection which such congregations
require ; and, when the full ferocity of fanaticism
is let loose, as it may be, it will become infi-
nitely more difficult to maintain the political priv
this
extraordinary infusion of barbarian blood Turkey
is rapidly acquiring the character which she pos-
sessed four hundred years since, and it is but too
probable that the next mail may inform us of the
actual resort to arms.
It cannot be forgotten, indeed, that such a re-
sult is no more than a natural consequence of the
aggression of Russia. We may say that hostilities
were already commenced when the Danubian Prin-
cipalities were occupied by a Russian army, for,
if an armed invasion of a foreign territory does not
constitute an act of war, it will be hard to say what
does so. The Turks would be clearly justified in
crossing the Danube, in expelling the Russians
from Wallachia and Moldavia, and even in follow-
ing up by offensive demonstrations an expedition
so openly provoked. If they could accomplish this
by their own unaided strength, the most difficult
of State problems would at once be solved ; but
few persons acquainted with the subject will ven-
ture to doubt that the event of such proceedings
would be to bring the Russians, after one or more
campaigns, to the gates of Constantinople. This
consummation it is the paramount interest of com-
bined Europe to avert, but it is clear that inter-
vention could be much more conveniently effected
before the sword has been drawn than when the
Czar has been brought within reach of his prize
with the title of conquest, and after the chances
of war.

DR ROUTH OF MAGDALEN COLLEGE.—On Monday
lost Dr. Routh, the venerable President of Magdalen
College, Oxford, entered upon his 99th year, and accord-
ing to annual custom, invited a, select party to dine with
him in commemoration of the event. The learned and,
venerable divine some months since entered upon the
sixty-third year of his office as President, having
been elected to that office in April, 1791. To this
announcement, which we believe to be without parallel
in the annals of the University, we are glad to be
able to add that Dr. Routh continues to enjoy good
health. He has lately bestowed a choristership on
a boy whose grandfather he admitted to that office sixty
years ago,