Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-06-18

or the Porte regretng that upon an occasion
so grave as the present the Porte had yielded to foreign
suggestions and expressing the hope Ottoman
Government would yet reconsider its determination and
come TO one more prudent and consistent with the
Iienuy intentions Of the Emperor Nicholas. Lord Red
cne has had frequent conferences with the counselors
OF the Sultan and it is inferred from that fact that he
was prVy to the decisions Of the Divan"
Another original article in this mornings Moaiteur
upon the same subject, and Immediately following that
quoted above acquires interest and Importance from the
fact that iscontans distinct recognition which, from
the authority of its position the Government organ
may be considered official, Of the very limited and
special of the protectorate which SO much talk
has lately been made claimed by France in favor of Ro-
Catholic Latin religious interests in the East
cite this article for that the Inte
gencer would like TO record in its columns authentic
documents establishing the real character of this Eastern
question: which is certainly of immense political inn
portance, involving the peace of the world:
We have nevertheless thought" says the Noniteur
" that opinion expressed many years ago, by a
whose authority pronounce in such matters
not De disputed might be reproduced at present with the
more weight as it was completely Independent of the
tual circumstances.
In 1885, upon his return from Constantinople NJ lie
Comte de Saint Priest ambassador since 176S the
Sublime Porte, RENTED to the King Louis XVI in
formity with the excellent usage of ancient diplomacy
memoirs in which summed up the various labors
OF his mission and particularly report upon the pro
econ OF the CHRISTIAN religion IN the Levsnt deposited
in the archives Of the department of foreign affairs 1t
is thus that NJ lie Come de Saint Priest enlightened by
the experience OF seventeen years. characterzes in the
of this report the protectorate of the
Kings of France the Catholics of the Levant:
. The zeal OF our kings has been decorated with the
expression of protection of the Catholic religion in the
Levant But this expression is lusory and serves
mslead those who do not investigate the matter to the
bottom. The Sutans have never even conceived the
idea that the monarchs of France should suppose them
selves authorized to interfere in the religious
the subjects Of the Porte There is not Prince as
wisely remarks of my predecessors, NJ. lie Marquis
de Bonnat in memoir upon this subject, however close
may be his union with another sovereign who would per-
nit himself to interfere with the religion of the subjects
of the latter. The Turks are delicate others upon
this point
1t is easy to understand how France which has never
had other treaties with the Porte than those suggested by
friendship, has been able impose upon obga
tons of odous nature. Accordingly the prime point
of my instructions enjoned upon to avoid every thing
that could umbrage the Porte by. giving too
great extension to the captuaons upon the subject of
religion"
This important citation" adds the Aoaiteur Of this
morning dispenses with all commentary from u.s. We
will only remark that all the facts accord with the doc
ne exposed by NJ lie Comte de Saint de Priest and that
there does exist in the capulatons of France with
Turkey any article having relation protection to be
exercised over subjects of the Porte
The following article original in La Patre but adopted
few days since into the Moaier and impressed thus
with Official stamp, is all that need be added estab-
fish the limited character of the French proecorate and
the distinction taken by Napoleon III between that ex
ercsed by himself in the East and that which was the
subject of the umaum of his Majesty of Russia
Certain journals French and foreign mistakng the
character of the proecorate which France has for
turtles exercised in the East in favor Catholicism nst
tuted certain analogy between this and that
which Russia claims in favor of the oriental rite.
This opinion arises from error least from
- ial -;
come accredited The capit4ationS formerly sanctioned
in 1902 by the treaty of peace which followed the exped-
ton to Egypt simply recognises in the Kings Of France
right OF protection the shrnes Of Jerusalem and
the religious establishments also possessed in various
ports of the Levan by Frank priests Of the Latin rite
Now, every body knows that in Turkey only foreigners
included in the term Franks. The official proecto-
rate OF France therefore, not applied to the native
Turks and practice il extended sometimes subjects
Of the Sultan protesting the Roman religion then could
only be seen there usage varying according to places
and circumstances, and by no means q definite right
founded upon treaties The ancient instructions
the ambassadors Of France Constannope have always
recommended that this distinction should not be lost sight
Of They might doubtless for humanty's sake inter
in unofficial manner behalf of Catholic sub
ects to the Porte and belonging by birth the Ottoman
Empire, where they composed only very feeble mino-
rity but the ambassadors covered with their legal pro-
lection only several hundreds of secular priests and
monks who for the part Italians and Spanars
whose spiritual chief essential fact this be noted
resided in Rome Such is still the situation of affairs
What Russia demands the contrary, is right of
protection the Greek church in other words the
guardianship of a communion composed of twelve millions
Of the Sultans subjects and ruled by patriarch whose
see at Constannope and who exercises, does his
clergy Of all degrees, civil powers of very large extent
united to his religious authority 1t is impossible there
FORE either in principle in fact to establish any points
of resemblance between two protectorates SO widely diff
ferent in their origin their end and their Importance
TURKEY