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

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 24, 1853.

RUSSIA AND TURKEY.

COUNT NESSELRODE'S LAST NOTE.

In the despatch to M. Meyendorff, M. Nessel
rode stated that in another document would" be
discussed the modifications required by the Porte
in the Vienna note. This document the Zero
Berlin has just published ; and we now lay ite-
fore our readers, merely promising that it was rst
written in French, and that we reproduce it from
the G erman version :

" EXAMINATION OF THE THREE MODIFICATIONS WHICH
THE OTTOMAN PORTE HAS INTRODUCED INTO THE

AUSTRIAN. NOTE.

"Ist. The projet of Vienna declares, If at all times
the Emperors of Russia have borne witness to their
active solicitude for the maintenance of the privileges
and immunities of the orthodox Greek Church in the
Ottoman Empire, the Sultans have never refused to con-
secrate them again by solemn acts.' This passage has
been modified as follows If at all times the Em-
perors 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 main•
tenance of the immunities and privileges of that worship
and of that Church, in the Ottoman Empire, and to
consecrate them again
"These words, 'ln the Ottoman Empire,' and these,
the maintenance of the immunities and privileges, &c.,'
are 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 passage ; for nobody denies to
the Sovereigns of Russia their active solicitude for 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 Turkey, and for the
maintenance of their religious franchises, and that the
Government is resolved to adhere to that solicitude, and
to preserve those privileges intact.
The turn given to the phrase is so much the more un-
acceptable, because, by the expressions which follow,
there is attributed to the Sultans more than solicitude for
the orthodox worship. It is affirmed that they have
never ceased to watch over the maintenance of these im-,
munities and privileges, and to confirm them by solemn
acts. The facts are diametrically contrary to what is
here affirmed ; and, considering what has taken place
more than once lately, and especially in the affair of the
Holy Places, we are forced to seek a remedy for them
by requiring more positive guarantees for the future.
" If we consent to acknowledge that the Ottoman
Government has never ceased to watch over the main-
tenance of the privileges of the Greek Church, what then
becomes of the complaints which we have raised against
it? We should be' ourselves admitting by it that we
have no substantial wrongs, that the mission of Prince
Menschikoff was without motive, and, in a word,
that the note which has been addressed to us is itself
superfluous.
" 2d. The omissions and additions of words, which
are made here with a striking affectation, have evidently
the object of enfeebling the treaty of Kainardji, whilst
assuming the appearance of confirming it. The wording
of the note first adopted at Vienna was, `Faithful to the
letter and to the spirit of the stipulations 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 privileges 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, relative to the maintenance of immuni-
ties, applies to the view which we had expressed, and to
which we still hold ; for, in our opinion, the promise to
protect a worship and its churches comprises within it
the maintenance of the immunities which they possess.
The two things are inseparable. This reading, first
adopted at Vienna, was afterwards subjected at London
and at Paris to a modification ; 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, are
inseparably united. But the distinction was indicated
in a manner so delicate that, in the spirit of conciliation,
and in the desire to arrive as soon as possible at a solu-
tion, we admitted the reading which from that moment
we have considered as invariable.
"These motives of condescension are no more applic-
able to the new changes which have been made in the
same passage at Constantinople. The line of demarca-
tion between the two objects is too strictly traced to
enable us to admit those changes without disowning all
that we have said and written. The mention of the
treaty of Kainardji becomes superfluous, and its confir-
mation 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 world. It
is with this end that these two words have been sup-
pressed—' the letter and the spirit.' They bring for-
ward without any necessity the fact that the protection
of the Christian worship is exercised by the Porte, as if
we raised the pretension to exercise ourselves that pro-
tection in the States of the Sultan ; and as they omit
at the same time to remember that, according to the let-
ter of this 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.
" 3d. The modification introduced into this passage
of the Austrian note is especially inadmissible. The Ot-
toman Government would bind itself only to allow the
orthodox worship to participate in the advantages which
it would accord to other religious communities, subjects
of the Porte. But from the moment in which these
communities, Catholics or others, should not be consti-
tuted of native persons, but of foreign priests and laics
(and this is the case in almost all the convents, hospitals,
seminaries, and bishoprics of the Latin rite in Turkey),
from the moment, we say, in which it should please the
Porte to accord to these establishments new advantages
and privileges, the orthodox communities would not,
according to the words sought to be introuduced into
the note, have the right to demand the same favours 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 ap-
pointed, receiving from the Porte privileges which the
Greek Patriarch has not. Every demand on the part
of the last would be repelled, because he is the subject
of the Porte. The same objection might be taken by
the Ottoman Ministry in that which concerns the Ca-
tholic establishments in Palestine, as soon as a new ad-
vantage, not mentioned in the last firman, should be
accorded to them, to the detriment of the native com-
munities."

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.
(From the Times.)
The latest intelligence from Eastern Europe is
comprised in two unwelcome though not unex-
pected pieces of information. The first of these
is, that the combined fleets in Beiska Bay have
been compelled, on the representations of the
Diva». to despatch two ships each to Constanti
for -.
nople r the protection of the French and English
residents in that capital. The second is, that Aus-
tria, as we announced on Thursday, has signified
her partial dissent from the views taken by France
and England of the point still in dispute between
Russia and the Porte.
For the former of these occurrences the readers
of this journal must have been well prepared, but
the importance of the tidings can hardly be over-
rated. It is plain from this simple fact that the
Government of the Sultan retains no effective au-
thority over the troops or population of the capital,
and that the spirit, moreover, of this population
is so warlike and fanatical as to impel them head-
long, not only against their enemies, but against
those whom they consider indifferent friends. c.'he
sentiments of these veritable Ottomans far outstrip
the views of their European advocates. They have
no idea of being " protected." They spurn the
consideration and favour of Christian Powers.
They are anticipating a holy and victorious war in
defence of the Crescent against the Cross, and they
hold themselves competent to repel, not only
armed invaders, but troublesome auxiliaries. It
is no longer a question of European Turks, molli-
fied by civilization and discipline, but deprived by
this very process of national strength ; the Turks
now in arms are as fanatical and as ferocious as
the subjects of Mahomet 11. They have swarmed
up from Asiatic solitudes, where no elements of
reform have ever been at work to subdue the
vigour of barbarism, and the metamorphosis of the
population is as strange as if the Spanish garrisons
of St. Sebastian and Pamplona were suddenly as-
similated to the redoubtable battalions of Gonsalvo
the Great.
With regard to the objections now advanced by
Austria to the views of France and England,
though it is unquestionably matter of regret that
any such discordance of opinion should have re-
ceived overt expression, there can be nothing sur-
prising in the fact that the four mediating Powers
should look with some difference of sentiment upon
the question at issue and the parties concerned.
All are alike interested in the one paramount ob-
ject of preserving the general peace, and of pre-
venting the dangerous aggrandizement of Russia,
but all are not impressed with the same political
views, or placed in the same political relations.
It never could have been reasonably anticipated
citefirwereadeoams
tohfe remonstrance wefitFhratnheee Eamnd-
that the Court of Vienna would be disposed to use
spe roi no
ru
England, but it is nevertheless incontestably cer-
tain that no power is so deeply concerned as Aus-
tria in securing those main result., in aid of which
theV
wouldi ehnena
disaster fe
tr
oe nacl el aws
es euml
db eeda.
bsoWlutaerdewsthirucch-
tion to her, and the establishment of Russia on
the Lower Danube, while it would only indirectly

affect the interests of Western and Central Europe,
would place the Austrian empire in so dangerous a
position, that in another generation it might be-
come what the Turkish Empire is now. For these
conclusions there is no necessity to presume any
extraordinary wisdom in the Austrian Cabinet.
They are deducible from calculations of interest
too obvious to be overlooked or denied. Austria
cannot possibly, at heart, entertain any other de-
sires on this Ottoman question than are avowed
by the Governments of England and France, for
the plain reason that these, and these only, coin-
cide with the manifest
requirements of her own
security.
The present objections of the Austrian Govern-
ment are, of course, prompted by deference to
Russia. Russia, while nominally subscribing, like
the other Powers, to the resolution of "maintaining
the Ottoman empire," is naturally not solicitous to
place this empire under too effectual a guarantee,
and anxious, notwithstanding her disclaimers, to
invest her spiritual protectorate with as much tem-

poral consequence as possible: England and.
France, having large interests in the Mediterra-
nean, having fewer political sympathies with the
Russian Government, and being less exposed to
the influences inseparable from territorial con-
tiguity, are disposed and competent to express
their views with distinct and unqualified emphasis.
They desire to see the pretensions of Russia paci-
fically but effectively checked, and, in so far as the
Turkish modifications involve any real barrier to
northern encroachments, they are inclined either
to support them in substance, by pressing them
upon the Czar as actually coincident with the Note
already accepted, or to give them practical effect
by another Note, to be issued collectively on the
part of. the Conference, explaining, its original con-
clusions in the sense afterwards affixed by the
Porte. These proposals however, as comprising
an additional and somewhat marked step in oppo-
sition to Russia, are distasteful to the Cabinet of
Vienna—not, indeed, in principle, for there is no
Power so much interested as Austria in the prohi-
bition of Russian aggrandizement, but as bringina
her into disagreeable collision with a Court a
which she is onerously indebted, and from which,
in time of need, she may anticipate either fatal en-
mity or all-important support. These considera-
tions will enable everybody to comprehend the
purport of the intelligence referred to.
We still regard it as of the very highest moment
that the solution of the present Turkish question
should proceed from the combined action of the
Four Powers. It is not that we distrust the power
of France and England in alliance, or even of one
of them alone, to impose moderation upon the
Court of St. Petersburg, but the combined action
of Europe, and that only, is certain to be both
pacific and effectual. If the Emperor of Russia can
be placed in such a position by the opposition of all
the Four Powers that any advance on his part
must be directly against the recorded convictions
and the material resources of united Christendom,
it is exceedingly improbable that such advance
would be made at all ; but, if the protest against
his proceedings is confined to one or two of those
Powers, not only is the strength of the controlling
force proportionately impaired, but, what is of
much greater consequence, the moral delinquency
of Russia would be relieved by the circumstance
that if half Europe thought her wrong half might
be still represented as thinking her right. It is
the system, in short, of adjusting all disputes by
the collective and irresistible action of the great
Powers in common which has for nearly forty years
preserved the peace of Europe, and imparted to
our own generation its characteristic features of
tranquillity and progress. We earnestly trust,
therefore, that a principle of such proved import-
ance may be still maintained, and that, since the
desires of Austria cannot in reality differ as to the
substance of the arrangement from those of France
and England, some means may be found to give a
diplomatic expression to what is virtually a unani-
mity of opinion.

( From the Morning Chronicle. )
We published yesterday, in a portion of our im-
pression, that second dispatch of M. de Nesselrode
to the Russian ambassador at Vienna to which we
have more than once had occasion to allude. It
had been known for some days that this document
discussed, point by point, the Turkish modifications
of the Vienna Note, and repdiated them as im-
plying concessions which the Plmperor-would hold
it dishonourable to yield. The moment the Euro-
pean public was aware that e objections of the
lli
Czar were to the substance, ai . not to the form of
the emendations, it was fully; understood that the
Eastern question had entered on a now and criti-
cal stage • but, the leading fact having been once
established, it was not supposed that the text of
the Russian dispatch would afford ground for fresh
uneasiness. The document proves, however, to be
one of the most important papers which have ap-
peared in the course of the negotiations. The Court
of St. Petersburg has not, since the first communi-
cations of Prince Menschikoff, sent out anything so
likely to render a pacific adjustment impracticable.
It is not their argument, but their language—not
their logic, but their tone—which force one to the
conclusion that M. de Nesselrode and his Imperial
master are endeavouring, either to push matters at
once to extremities, or, for some ulterior object, to
adjourn indefinitely the settlement for which they
have pretended to be solicitous. We consider it
perfectly unnecessary to illustrate by detailed ci-
tations the spirit of this dispatch. From its com-
mencement to its close, it never interrupts a series
of direCtinsults to Turkey or her supporters, ex-
cept to display that more refined insolence which
affects to assume that the opponents of the Czar
have all along been accomplices in the idesigns
which he avows. So deeply must it envenom
the dispute, that it will need all the self-command
of the Christian allies of the Sultan to enable them
to continue negotiations with the appearance of
courtesy. With respect, however, to the Porte
itself; it is impossible to measure by anticipation
the effect of such phraseology on men's minds in
Constantinople. • The danger is plain—so plain
that we are forced to suppose the ,Czar has made
up his mind to face the responsibility of evoking it.
There may be some attempt to evade this respon-
sibility in the instruction given to M. de Meyen-
dorff to regard the note as intended for his indi-
vidual guidance ; but the Court of St. Petersburg
must be perfectly well aware that stabs like these
are felt all the more acutely for the difficulty of re-
senting them formally.
Of Redschid Paella's five modifications three are
criticised. The first is treated of in language in-
geniously contrived to give the maximum of offence
to everybody concerned in the matter. The Turk-
ish Minister, demurring to the statement of the
original Note, that the Emperors of Russia had at
all times " shown their active solicitude for the
maintenance of the immunities and privileges of
the Orthodox Greek Church in the Ottoman Em-
pire," had deemed it safer to recognise the Impe-
rial solicitude on behalf of " the worship of the
Orthodox Greek Church ;" and he proposed, in 1
the words immediately following, to attribute to
the Sultans a policy of constant tenderness for the
immunities and privileges of their Greek sub-
jects. This last proposition, so far as regards
the period which has elapsed since the growth of 1
Russia into historical importance, is not by any
means so little supported by facts as might be
inferred from the superficial abuse of Turkey,
and Islamism which we constantly hear ; but,
even if it were untrue, the discourtesy with which
it is denied by the Russian Minister would be in-
excusable. As for the admission, writes M. do.
Nesselrode, that the Emperors of Russia have at
all times shown themselves solicitous for the wor-
ship of the Greek Church, it is perfectly immaterial
—everybody is aware of that ; whilst, on the other
hand, with respect to the statement that the Sul-
tans have watched over the privileges of the Greek
Christians, " the facts," he assert; " are diame-
trically contrary to what is here affiirmed"—wit-
ness, in particular, the concessions made to M. de
Lavalette in the affair of the Holy Places ! The
reader who marks this double-barrelled insult to
Turkey and France, will have little interest to
spare for the soundness of the argument by which
it is supported. Yet it is worth while to observe
how completely Russia is self-refuted. If it be
true that the Sultans have habitually proved them-
selves the tyrants and persecutors of the Greek
Communion and if, as is contended lower down
the Czars have
always enjoyed the right of protect-
ing their co-religionists against Ottoman cruelty,
why has the interposition, of Russia been reserved
for the year 1853—why 'has she ever recognised
Turkey as her alley—why has she joined in rescu-
ing her from dismemberment--why has she so long
kept up the ineffable hypocrisy of never ceasing
protestations of amity, respect, and good-will
The second head of Count Nesselrode's criticism
has reference to circumstances attending the pre-
paration of the Vienna Note which have as yet but
imperfectly transpired. It is notorious, however,
I that, by a construction worthy of a Houndsditch at-
torney's office, the Court of St. Petersburg had
affected to read, in the treaty of Kainardji, an anti-
! cipatory sanction of the Protectorate which it
I claimed. The first draft of the Note, appear* to

lend too much countenance to this view, was
altered at.the suggestion of the Cabinet of London
and the amendment of Redschid Pacha, carried
the indirect negation still further. M. de Nessel-
rode now reverts to the original doctrine of the
prerogative asserted to reside in Russia, and strips
his affirmation of it of every shadow of reserve.
The third group of objections possess less no-
velty than the others. They have been anticipated
with tolerable accuracy, and scarcely require to be
commented upon anew. The Czar expressly de-
clares that he has never ceased to claim for the
Greek Church the maximum of secular privilege
conceded to congregations of foreign Christians in
Turkey. The true parallel to the "convents, hos-
pitals, seminaries, and bishoprics of the Latin rite"
which M. de Nesselrode specifies, is afforded by
such institutions of a similar nature, existing in
the Ottoman dominions, as are composed of, or di-
rected by, Russian subjects. So that the claim of
the Emperor is, in fact, to have the Turco-Greek
Christians exactly assimilated to congregations or
convents of Russo-Greekdemzens—a claim amount-
ing, almost in terms, to a demand for a share in
givenimpossible to the
▪ nted out
the vital importance of the Turkish modi▪ fications.
opinionst theba t
au lsttaronof'nstghe politicaleo
wnftil
confirmation
sovereignty.fartomthecan first,
rbs It i
te, ps
The Emperor's objection of the latter, on the ground
that they infringed on his pretensions, is a sufficient
that the Porte was justified in guard mg
against an underhand attempt to obtain objects
which all Europe had already denounced as unjust.
The real issue between the aggressor and his
tended victim turned on the Protectorate which
been, in so many forms, demanded and refu?
Redschid Pacha, with an excusable disti
of the restless adversary of his Sovereign, requiL,..r
that the necessary limitations should not be left,
according to the courteous purpose of the Con-
ference, to the good faith of the. Emperor, but that
they should be distinctly introduced into the body
of the document. The foresight of the demand is
abundantly illustrated by the refusal of the Em-
peror to admit it, and by the grounds on which
that refusal is based ; and the framers of the Note
can scarcely regret that they have an opportunity
of guarding against the advantage which would
confessedly have been taken of the general terms
which had been originally employed.
France and England will not be diverted from
their efforts to preserve the peace of the world by
any susceptibility
.to affronts which they are not
called upon to notice ; but the zealous partisans of
Russia in both countries will do well to consider
the light in which their Governments seem to be
regarded by the Imperial Cabinet. The substan-
tial objections to the modifications are founded
altogether on their undoubted inconsistency with
the Menschikoff ultimatum. In other words, the
Emperor declares that, in accepting the Vienna
Note, he considered that France and England were
actively promoting the very objects which their
fleets had been sent to Besika Bay to prevent, even
at the risk of war. It is impossible that the
statesmen of St. Petersburg can really have arrived
at so preposterous a conclusion ; nor was the am-
biguity of the Vienna Note any sufficient excuse
for affecting a belief so injurious to the honour of
the mediating Powers. It is not, however, to be
regretted that the allied Cabinets are now com-
pelled to give assurances to Turkey, which, how-
ever little calculated, under existing circumstances,
to effect a pacific solution of the dispute, constitute
the distinctest possible protest against the aggres-
sive designs of Russia, and indicate the fixed de-
termination to prevent their realisation.

• (Erma the Daily News.)
We now publish the second dispatch of Count
Nesselrode to Baron Meyendorff. Its tenor
exactly corresponds with the account we were
enabled to give of it two days ago. It explains the
sense in which the Czar accepted the Vienna note,
and this sense is one in which the Sultan never
could accept the note without sacrificing his own in-
dependence and self-respect ; and in which France
and England could not invite the Sultan to accept it
without treading on the rights of au independent
State. Count Nesselrode declares that his master
cannot consent to the first modification of the Porte,
because with that modification the note will not
imply that the Emperor has a right to interfere
between the Sultan and his subjects of the Greek
rite. Count 'Nesselrode does not deny that the
modified terms of the note ensure to the Porte's
subjects of the Greek rite every immunity they enjoy
or are entitled to. Count Nesselrode, therefore,
by standing out for the something more which he
says was implied in the original draft of the Vienna
note, frankly confesses that regard for the immu-
nities of Christians of the Greek rite in Turkey was
only a secondary consideration of the Czar ; that
what the Czar really sought was an admission
by the Sultan of his right to interfere in the
internal politics of the Ottoman Empire. Again.
Count Nesselrode declares that his master can-
not consent to the second modification proposed
by the Porte, because if it is made the Vienna note
will no longer assert that the right claimed by the
Czar of interfering in the internal politics of the
Ottoman Empire is conferred upon him by the
Treaty of Kainardji. The treaty confers no such
right upon the Czar ; but if the Sultan had
signed the Vienna note as it originally stood,
he would have acknowledged that the groundless
claim of the Czar .was well founded. Yet again
Count Nesselrode declares that his master
cannot accept the note as modified by the Porte,
because it does not, like the original draft, promise
to concede to the Christians of the Greek rite sub-
ject to the Sultan any immunities not enjoyed by
other Christian subjects of the Porte. The Czar
insists that he has a right to claim for Ottoman
subjects of the Greek rite, all or any priviliges that
the Porte may have been induced, by political or
other considerations, to grant to any foreign Chris-
tians while residing in its dominions. Had the
Czar demanded that his own subjects of the Greek
rite while residing in Turkey should enjoy any im-
munities enjoyed by French Catholics or English
Protestants while residing there, his demand would
have been reasonable, and no more than his sub-
jects are entitled to expect him to advance on their
behalf. But when he demands that the Sultan
shall take from Russia the law as to how he is to deal
with his own subjects, and also that he shall tell
these subjects they are indebted to Russia alone for
the concessions he may make to them, the Czar
demands what he cannot have a shadow of a right
to ask.

It is . curious to note how inconsistently, within
the brief limits of this not very long dispatch, the
Russian Chancellor at one time holds out the im-
munities of Christians of the Greek rite in Turkey
as of little -moment in the eyes of the Czar—at
another as all in all with him. When it is Count
Nesselrode's cue to speak of the Sultan's refusal to
give Russia creditfor immunities granted by the
Porte, of its own free accord, to Christians of the
Greek rite, the Count pooh-poohs these concessions
—it is not a guarantee for them that is wanted ; it
is that the enjoyment of them shall redound to the
honour and glory of the Czar. But when Count
Nesselrode comes to speak of the conflicting claims
of the various Christian communions at the Holy
Sepulchre, he affects a zeal for those of the Greek
rite that cannot be contented with substantial jus-
tice, but must secure for them every merely flatter-
ing concession that has been made to other sects.
Even the Christians of the Greek rite must see the
source of this glaring inconsistency : the Czar is
thinking not of them but of his own self-glorifica-
tion. As individuals he would have no objection
to see them trampled upon ; but as representatives
of the Church of which he aspires to be the earthly
head, he will insist upon precedence for them, in
worldly dignity, over all other Christians.. The
vanity of the Czar is too much for his policy : even
while trying to shake the allegiance of the Sultan's
subjects of the Greek rite by affecting to be their
champion, he cannot conceal froth them what utter
nothings they are in his eyes.
;We' dwell upon these self-betrayals of their real
objects by the Emperor of Russia and his Ministers.
not as throwing any new light on these objects ;
we recapitulate them merely for the sake of refresh-
ing the memories of our readers before adverting
to a, more important revelation contained in the
Nesselrode dispatch. The note, in its original form,.
it is admitted in that dispatch, was too explicit,
not only for the Ottoman Government but for the
Governments of England and France. "The read-
ing first adopted at Vienna was afterwards subjected
at London and Paris to a modification ; 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 illu-
sion in the sense of the change." The note, as
originally drafted by the Austrian Ministers, ad-
mitted too apparently of the interpretation now
attempted to be put upon it by the Czar. France
and England saw through the trap, and endea-
voured so to modify the terms that it might no
longer admit of this interpretation. The Czar
perused the alterations ; saw that they were
insufficient to defeat this purpose (" the distinc-
tion was indicated in a manner so delicate that,
in the spirit of conciliation," &c.) ; and ac-
quiesced in it. But the Turkish modifica-
tions were effective, and must, therefore, be re-