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

LATEST FOREIGN NEWS.

FRAN CE.
REPLY TO THE NESSELRODE NOTE

The following is a resume of the reply of M.
Drouyn. de Lhuys to the circular note of M. de
Nesselrode :
M. Drouyn de Lhuys begins by remarking that from
the exposé itself of the difference between Russia and the
Porte as it is presented by Count de Nesselrode, it results
that the mission of Prince Menschikoff to Constantinople
had only one object—the settlement of the difficulties re-
lative to the partition of the Holy Places of Jerusalem
among the various Christian communities, and that this
object was accomplished to the satisfaction of the Cabi-
net of St. Petersburg. He founds upon this exposé the con-
clusion that the present discussion in the East is an en-
tirely new one, totally unconnected with that about Jeru-
salem, and affecting in every way the independence and
sovereignty of the Sultan ; and such, adds M. Drouyn
de Lliuys, is the judgment formed of it at Constanti-
nople by the representative of France, Great Britain,
and Prussia. How, in fact, he says, can it be pre-
tended that in order to guarantee to the Christians of
the Greek faith the possession of certain sanctuaries, it
is necessary to cover them in the whole extent of the
empire with an official protection which would substi-
tute the moral authority of the Emperor of Russia for
that which belongs legitimately to the Sultan ? What
relation exists between two such different facts, and how
can the most important of them become an appendix as
a necessary consequence of the lesser fact ?
M. Drouyn de Lhuys then points out in the circular
of M. de Nesselrode three orders of argument, the
treaties appealed to, historical analogies, and complaints.
He discusses !successively these three orders of consid-
erations which have been produced in support of the
pretensions of the Cabinet of St. Petersburg. Tri the
treaties which Russia has concluded with the Porte,
the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Emperor Napo-
leon sees that if the Russian Cabinet has sometimes
stipulated for the subjects of the Sultan, the latter
either belonged to provinces which the Porte had mo-
mentarily lost by the chance of war, and for the resto-
ration of which certain conditions could be imposed, or
to provinces which during the existence of' hostilities had
exposed themselves to the anger of the Ottoman Govern-
ment, and in whose favour protection was necessary from
considerations of policy and humanity. None of these
stipulations have the character of generality which it is
now attempted to attribute to them, and the treaty of
Kainardji in particular only confers upon Russia a right
of protection limited and defined by a church the service
of which is performed by Russian priests ; and which it
was proposed to establish in the suburb of Galata. The
French Cabinet does not conclude from this that practi-
cally, and by the force of things, the Cabinet of St. Pe-
tersburg has not been naturally led to interest itself for
the Christians of the Greek rite, who form in Turkey in
Europe the majority of the population. But the Porte,
on its side, has taken into consideration the sympathies
of Russia for the Eastern Church. It has not up to
the present moment entered into any engagement
to lessen the merit of its toleration, and impose on it,
instead of the duty freely performed towards its sub-
jects, obligations towards a foreign Power. It is on
this point, according to the French Cabinet, that lies
the whole question, and to state the plain terms of it
is already to demonstrate its importance. As to the
analogies mentioned in the circular of M. de Nessel-
rode, M. Drouyn de Lhuys is not of opinion that they
have any better application to the present state of things
than the treaties referred to. If, at the time of the
Reformation, there were among the Princes of the Holy
Empire agreements relative to the exercise of the new
worship in their States, this empire was an association
of States governed by the same chief, and the agree-
ments of which M. de Nesselrode speaks were the result
of long intestine wars, or of political combinations, in
which the elective character of the Imperial dignity
necessarily exercised a great influence.
M. de Nesselrode had alleged also the capitulations
of France with the Porte.; M. Drouyn de Lhuys replies
that these capitulations never gave to the French Go-
vernment a right of protection over the Catholic subjects
of the Sultan. If France has been able to render to
this small portion of the Ottoman population services of
the nature of those which Russia takes honour to her-
self for having rendered to persons of her own religion,
her direct and official protection has only been exorcised
in favour of foreign establishments, with priests equally
foreign, and whose spiritual chief resides at Rome.
The protection of Russia, on the contrary, would apply
to a clergy composed of subjects of the Sultan, and
hierarchically under a Patriarch who is also dependent
on the Porte. It is impossible, therefore, to assimilate
the position of the two Powers. M. Drouyn de Lhuys
terminates this point with the quOtation of an import-
ant passage from a paper by the Count de Saint Priest,
who was Ambassador of Louis XVI. at Constantinople
from 1768 to 1785, and which shows in clear terms the
nature of the French Protectorate :
"The zeal of our Kings has been decorated with the
name of protection of the Catholic religion in the Levant,
but this is illusory, and serves only to lead into error
those who do examine the question. Never have the
Sultans had an idea that the Monarchs of France thought
themselves authorised to interfere on matters of religion
with the subjects of the Porte. There is no Prince,
wisely observed one of my predecessors, the Marquis de
Bonnac, who however close his union with another
Sovereign, might be permitted himself to interfere with
the religion of his subjects. The Turks are as delicate
as others on this subject. It is easy to comprehend that
France never having treated with the Porte, except in a
friendly way, has not attempted to impose on it obliga-
tions of an odious nature. The first part of my instruc-
tions was to avoid everything that could give umbrage to
the Porte by giving too extended a sense to the capitula-
tions on matters of religion."

M. Drouyn de Lhuys declares that this quotation ren-
ders it unnecessary for him to offer any other explana-
tion on a subject which is set forth with much incontes-
tible authority. Thus, neither the treaties nor the ana-
logies invoked by M. de Nesselrode can serve as bases
for the pretensions of the Cabinet of St. Petersburg.
There remains the question of the complaints of Russir,.
What Russia reproaches the Porte with is a want of re-
spect and consideration in its mode of acting. The
French Cabinet recognises that every cabinet is the only
judge of what is due to its dignity. The reparation,
however, must always be proportioned to the offence.
Excuses and regrets generally constitute the reparation
for errors of form. This is the first time that we
have seen, in such a case, a Sovereign called upon to
abandon his moral influence over the greater portion of
his subjects.
Mr. Drouyn de Lhuys adds, that if Russia complains
that the Porte has shown tergiversation in the affair
of the Holy Places, France has an equal right to make
a similar complaint, and that, if she has abstained from
doing so, it was because she has taken into considera.
tion the embarrassments of a Power which, struggling
against two opposite currents of equal force, imagines
that it could only obtain its equilibrium by contracann•
contradictory obligations. The same spirit of mod:-
ration has led the French Government to take into
account the difference of times, and the changes which
have occurred within the last century in the relations of
the different Powers, and of Russia in particular, with
the Ottoman Empire ; and although France might allege
in support of the claims of the Fathers of the Holy
Land the clauses of a formal treaty, she has never de-
manded anything which might deprive the Greeks of
the advantages which events had placed in their hands ;
so far from that, she has consented that a sanctuary, that
of the Mosque of the Ascension, should be opened to
them, to which all access had been interdicted to them,
and which the recent efforts of a French Ambassador,
Admiral Rouissin, had in part restored to the Chris-
tian worship.
As to the key of the great door of the Church of Beth-
lehem, which has been so much spoken of, M. Drouyn
de Lhuys observes that it has been forgotten to mention
that the Greeks possessed a similar one, and that that of
the Latins, far from securing to them the property of a
temple always reserved to the other communion, only
granted them aright of passage. Neither has it been taken
into account that in Lreparation of the forgetfulness of
promises given to the Russian Legation by the Divan,
when the French Embassy received a different one, that
one of the two firmans intended to settle the question of
the Holy Places, conceded, on the demand of Prince
Menschikoff, to the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem the
exclusive superintendence of the works of reconstruction
which the state of the large Cupola of the Church of the.
Holy Sepulchre required.
All these facts, if they cannot invalidate the claims
foe,
it s
in-
tentions
of the. French Government, nevertheless consti-
tute so many deviations, if
fromnot ftriolem recentprteheeisetext
of the
engagements of the Porte towards France, whose dig.
nity required that
perfectlybtee
rand
completelyr respected,‘_ tlhtely should
least
4 0s d.llf,
her
les of
conciliatory, if it had only b 7
idea
et atehad
dwith
capitulationsith been
the
partiespen to the convention of July 13, 1841 could, a ,
the risk of compromising the peace which the collective
guarantee of the Powers had for object to secure to
the Ottoman Empire, use any of its rights anterior to
that European arangement, Fran
full right, not only of o ce would have had the
pposing the reserves which are
in constant use in diplomacy,
but in her tur.i. to mske
her menaces heard. FLh in rance, says M. Drouyn do
Lhuys conclusion, has followed very different
line of conduct ; and the
odera a
tion of which
she has given proof, in addition to taking from her
any part in the responsibilqy of the present crisis
also gives her a right to hope that the sacrifices which
she has made for the maintance of tranquility in the
East will not be thrown away, and that the Cabinet of
St. Petersburgh, influenced by similar considerations,
will find a means of reconciling its pretensions with the
prerogatives of the sovereignty of the Sultan, and of
settling otherwise than by force a, difference, the solu-
tion of which is now waited for by so many interests,

ciature, has delivered Monsignor Vecchiotttoi,tt umditionrisotefrtloief ApoproesitgoilliAc Ne:uinrs-
his letters of credence as Charge d'Affaires of the Holy
(cl ehcarie)
ee ,s
hoanue
bordering
See.
that the members
The Moniteur
poufbtlliieshlems ptewrioal
Hono-
rary Canons of the Imperial Chapter of St. Denis, and
have the right to assume the title and insignia of that
body : and the other that the members of the Metropo-
litan Chapter of Pails shall wear over their ordinary
dress suspended rounded their necks by a light blue rib-
bon, a decoration consisting of a cross, with five
branches, enamelled in white and violet, and having on
a blue ground, on one side, the effigy of the Holy Vir-
gin, the Patroness of the Church of Paris, and on the
other, the inscription Chapitre Metropolitain de Paris-
1853—Napoleon 111. Emperev:.
By order of the Emperor, the Count de Nieuwer-
kerke, director-general of the imperial museums, has
been authorised to add to his title that of intendant of
the flue arts of the household of his Majesty.