The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-03 00:00:00

THE TURKISH BLUE-BOOKS.

No. I.—THE ORIGINAL DISPUTE.
By the aid of the complete documentary evidence
on the Turkish question now at length presented
to Parliament, we shall be enabled to place before
the public a clear and connected history of all the
important transactions connected with the present
rupture. There is little doubt that the subject
will receive ample discussion; but as Parliamentary
debates are necessarily obscure to the general reader
without some independent knowledge of the facts
involved, we fulfil a public duty by reducing the
voluminous correspondence of Ministers and diplo-
matists into a form more practically useful. The
whole narrative will be found divisible into two
distinct, though unequal, portions, defined by the
period at which Prince Menschikoff made his fa-
mous demands upon the Porte. Up to that time
the question at issue was between France and
Russia exclusively; afterwards it became a contest

between Russia and Europe.
The first disturbance of the status quo in the
East originated in a dispute between the Greek
and Latin churches respecting certain prerogatives
in the Holy Places. Into the particulars of this
dispute it is quite unnecessary to enter, both be-
cause they were of little significance in themselves,
and because the differences have been adjusted.
We may simply observe that the Latins, repre-
sented by the French Ambassador at the Porte,
had obtained from the Sultan certain concessions,
conceived by the Greeks, who were represented by
Russia, to derogate not only from their prescrip-
tive rights, but from privileges recently granted
by special firman. The Russian and French Go-
vernments therefore, were to some extent em-
broiled—the former wishing to recover lost ground,
and the latter desiring to preserve an acquisition.
The attitude of the Turkish Cabinet at this con-
juncture was that of a Government indifferent
to the subject of contest, and anxious only
to satisfy two powerful rivals without offending
either. Its position is clearly described by Colonel
Rose, who, while in charge of British interests at
Constantinople dug.ing Lord Stratford de Red-
cliffe's absence, observes (March 7, 1853), that
" certainly the Ottoman Minister had been to
blame in the matter of the Holy Places, but that
he had been coerced ; that from the time M.
de Lavalette (the French Ambassador) threatened
to bring up a French fleet to the Dardanelles, and
M. de Titoff (the Russian Minister) menaced
instantly to quit Constantinople with every member
of his mission, if their respective and entirely
divergent demands were not complied with, the
Porte had, under the pressure of that and subse-
quent coercions, committed a series of lamentable
contradictions." As a matter of fact, and in so far
as this question was concerned, Russia had un-
doubtedly some ground of complaint : that is to
say, the Latin church had received a certain pre-
ference over the Greek, in contravention of pre-
vious understanding, but this had occurred only
through the pressure applied to the Porte. As
yet no European interests appeared to be involved,
but in Turkey every such embroilment is dan-
gerous, and it deserves remark that in the very
earliest communication on the subject—the very
despatch with which the whole series opens—Lord
Stratford, who had not then (May 20, 1850) left
Constantinople, writes as follows : " General
Aupick has assured me that the matter in dispute
is a mere question of property, and of express treaty
stipulation. But it is difficult to separate any such
question from political considerations ; and a
struggle of general influence, especially if Russia,
as may be expected, should interfere in behalf of
the Greek Church, will probably grow out of the
impending discussion." Russia did interfere, and
the relations between the contending Courts of St.

Petersburg and Paris assumed a menacing appear.
ante. At this period the policy of the British Go
vernment was simply one of impartial, though
vigilant, observation, nor can its views be better
represented than in the subjoined despatch of Lord
John Russell (at that moment Foreign Secretary)
to our Ambassador at Paris :—" Your Excellency
will understand, therefore —l, that into the
merits a this dispute her Majesty's Government 'I
will not enter ; 2, that her Majesty's Government
disapprove of every threat, and still more of the
actual employment of force ; and, 3, that both
parties should be told that, if they are sincere in
their professions of a desire to maintain the inde-
pendence of the Porte, they ought to abstain from
the employment of any means calculated to display
the weakness of the Ottoman empire. Above all,
they ought to refrain from putting armies and
fleets in motion for the purpose of making the tomb
of Christ a cause of quarrel among Christians."
At this stage of the dispute, while the French
fleet was hovering about the editerranean, and
the Russian battalions were mustering thickly on
the confines of the Turkish Principalities, a special
ambassador was despatched from St. Petersburgh
to Constantinople in the person of Prince Menschi-
koff. There was nothing, at first sight, either
unnatural or ominous in such a proceeding, for
the influence of Russia at the Porte might have
been thought compromised, and it was certainly
desirable to bring matters to a conclusion. But
the mission soon assumed a mysterious and
alarming kind of character. It was conducted
with circumstances of arrogance and even menace ;
its object was left indefinite, its purposes
seemed obscure, and misgivings were created
in all quarters at once. Besides the affair of the
Holy Places, " reparation" was mentioned as due
to the Russian Government for the breach of faith
committed towards the Greeks ; and " security"
was talked of for the future. However, in due
course, Prince Menschikoff arrived at the Turkish
capital, and on the 2d of March last paid his official
visit to the Grand Vizier, but omitted, in a most
pointed manner, to offer the same compliment to
Fuad Effendi, the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Nothing as yet had transpired of his ultimate de-
signs, but the misgivings of the Sultan seem to
have been instinctive, and as early as the 6th March
Colonel Rose was informed that " his Highness
entertained strong apprehensions that the mission
of Prince Menschikoff, far from being of a concilia-
tory character, as pretended, was, on the contrary,
intended to involve the Porte in serious difficulties,
and that the Emperor's object appeared to be to
trample under foot the rights of the Porte and the
dignity and independence of the Sovereign." It
was at this period, and under these circumstances,
that Colonel Rose sent those requisitions to Admi-
ral Dundas to bring up his fleet, which, with the
full approval of our Government, the Admiral
declined to obey. In the policy thus pursued,
Lord Stratford himself concurred, for we find him
afterwards (April 6) reporting from Constantinople,
" I took occasion to explain the grounds on which
it had be deemed advisable, under present circum-
stances, to keep her Majesty's squadron at Malta ;
and the Grand Vizier had every appearance of un-
derstanding that the interests of the Porte had been
more judiciously consulted by its detention than by
its appearance in the waters of the Archipelago."
Count Nesselrode himself had early remarked to
our Minister at St. Petersburg that there was " ne-
cessarily some vagueness" in Prince Menschikoff's
orders, and this vagueness became more andmore
remarkable as his mission took effect. At the
end of March the Grand Vizier told Colonel
Rose, " His policy is most confused. At one
time he would attract us to Russia by mild-
ness, spreading abroad the report that the inten-
tions of his Government are pacific. At another
lie seeks to gain us over by pointing out the disad-
vantages and inutility of our reliance upon Eng-
land. and France, and how wrong we are in follow-