Polynesian., 1853-12-24
Qbe polpnesian.
Russia and Turkey.


between Russia and Turkey is so strong
based upon the latest news from that quarter
of the world,-that we deem the following
article, from late number of the London II.
lustrated News, timely at the present mo-
ment, and one that will be of interest to oul
lreaders.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE PRESENT Dis
lPUTE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE PORTE
Having completed our sketch of the History
of the Ottoman Empire down to the period ol
the accession of the present Sultan, and also
treated Of the internal re orms attempted by
him, and the present condition and prospects
ofthe country, it remains to explain the ques-
tion now in dispute between the Porte and
the Emperor of RUSSIA question upon the
solution Of which depends the peace of Eu-
rope, and the very existence of the Ottoman
Empire.
The dispute first originated in regard to
what are called "the Holy Places" being
certain chapels and sanctuares IN Jerusalem,
to which, by consent of the Porte, Christian
pilgrims, both of the Romish and Greek
church. have for ages been accustomed 10 re-
sort. The safe keeping of these Holy Pla-
ces, and the safe conduct of the pilgrims re-
sorting to them, have always been a matter
of solicitude on the part of the French and
Russian Governments the King of the
French claiming the protection of the pill
grims Of the Romish faith, by virtue of the
rank and title long ago accorded to him by
tho Pontif of Rome, of "most Christian
King" the Emperor of Russia claiming the
protection of the pilgrims of the Greek faith,
by virtue of the rank and title arbitrarily as
sumed to himself by his ancestor, Peter the
Great, of Patriarch of the Greek Church.
The adjustment OF the respective claims OF
these two prOtectorates, in all that relates TO
the management Of the Holy Places, has,
from time to time, led to no little jealousy
and squabbling between the partizans of the
two Churches; but if there had been nothing
else to deal with as between these parties and
the Porte, the latter probably would have
succeeded in satisfying them both, by the
equity with which he has divided his conces-
siens between them. The question between
Russia and the Porte, however, does not end
with the Holy Places, nor with the safe con-
duct Of the pilgrims resorting thereto; it in
wolves, on the part Of Russia, the demand Of
a right Of protection over the whole of fne
members of the Greek Church, being sub
jects of the Porte, and residing within the do
mnions Of the Porte; in short, right to in
Iterierence between the Porte and twelve mil
lions of his subjects at any time the Emperor
of Russia may consider the latter aggrieved
This right, if it existed, would be clearly in
consistent to all pretence at independent SOW
ereign authority on the part of the Porte
and it would be so, not only in theory and
principle, but in actual practice. For seeing
how Russia has made the very dubious and
slender protectorate" of the Danubian pro-
Ivinces, conceded by the treaty Of Adrianople,
the pretence for three times occupying and
ravaging those provinces, as if they were her
own, there can be little doubt that if her pro-
lection were extended over the whole Greek
population of the Turkish Empire, she would
not hesitate, upon the first pretence, to send
her troops across the Danube, to occupy and
ravage Bulgaria, and her fleets to CONSTANT
nople; all as matters of protection" of
course; and, being all done by virtue of,rea-
Ties, neither Turkey nor the European allies
would have right to complain or resist
This is the position which the Emperor Of
Russia demands to occupy in the Ottoman
dominions, and demands it as a right. 1t
seems strange that he should claim from the
Porte new piece of paper, acknowledging
right, which, if it did already exist, even in
the faintest outline, he would certainly not be
scrupulous of enforcing without further recog-
milton. Yet so it is-it is because the Porte
will not sign note acknowledging right Of
protection to all its subjects of the Greek re-
ligion to exist in the Russian Gar, that the
latter has occupied the principalIties, as a
measure of material coercion 1t would have
been well, indeed, for his case, if the Empe-
ror Nicholas had left his claim to rest upon
mere assertion, or upon some vague appeal
to general principles Of natural equity-up-
on some lancied divine authority, arising out
Of his usurped title Of Patriarch Of the Greek
Church-in fine, upon the terror of his bull
lets and the law of the highway-upon any
thing rather than pretended documentary au-
thority, the very existence of which, as we
have stated, would show additional documen-
tary authority to be unnecessary. He has
not done 50, however; and by seeking TO
.make out title :" for his "right," shows
that he has no ii lie at all-not the pretence
at the shadow of title to what he claims; !;
but rather the very reverse, inasmuch as
when man, knowing of small and exceP-
tional concession already made to him by a
solemn document, cites that document IN evi-
dence against the partyipaking it, he cannot
put il in for more than It is worth ;-certain-
Iiy he cannot base upon it large general
claim; for erceptio probat regulam. Further,
by citing it in evidence at all, and joining is
sue upon it, he admits that he has nothing
else whereon to rest his claim. This may
savor of special pleading, perhaps; but 1t Is
logical and just reasoning; and even the pal
Itriest resources of special pleading would De
'liustifabe when man comes into court, as
the Emperor Nicholas now does, brand'shlns