These motives of deference no longer apply to the fresh modification of the same passage which has been made at Constantinople.

The line of demarcation between the two objects is there too plainly drawn to admit of our accepting it without falsifying all that we have said and written. The mention of the treaty of Kainardji is superfluous, and its confirmation without object, from the time that its general principle is no longer applied to the maintenance of the religious immunities of the religion. It is for this object that the words the letter and the spirit' have been suppressed. The fact that the protection of the Christian religion is exercised by the Sublime Porte' is needlessly insisted on, as if we pretended ourselves to exercise that protection in the Sultan's dominions; and, as it is at the same time omitted to notice that, according to the terms of the treaty, the protection is a promise made and an engagement undertaken by the Sultan, there is an appearance of throwing a doubt upon the right which we possess of watching over the strict fulfilment of that promise.

"3. The alteration proposed in this passage of the Austrian note is altogether inadmissible.

"The Ottoman Government would merely engage to allow the Orthodox church to share in the advantages which it might grant to other Christian communities, subjects of the Porte. But if those communities, whether Catholics or others, were not composed of native Rayahs, but of foreign monks or laymen (and such is the case with nearly the whole of the convents, hospitals, seminaries, and bishoprics of the Latin rite in

The same objection would be made by the Ottoman Ministry with reference to the Catholic establishments of Palestine, in case any fresh advantage or right not specified in the last firmans should hereafter be granted to them to the prejudice of the native communities."

In a despatch, written on the 30th of September, to Sir G. H. Seymour, at St. Petersburg, Lord Clarendon examined, at considerable length, the interpretation put by Count Nesselrode on the Vienna Note. He said :

"With regard to the first objection in Count Nesselrode's Note, I have to observe that the Conference at Vienna, in adverting to the active solicitude at all times displayed by the Emperor of Russia for the maintenance of the privileges and immunities of the Greco - Orthodox church, simply

intended to record the anxiety which every Sovereign must feel for the welfare, in a foreign country, of the religion he himself professes; but the Conference by no means intended to affirm that the immunities and privileges in question were solely due to the solicitude of the Emperors of Russia; and the Porte is justified in asserting that many of these privileges are of a date anterior to the existence of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

"Count Nesselrode alludes to other grievances, but specifies none except that regarding the Holy Places, which has been satisfactorily settled; nor have any other grievances connected with religious matters at any time been put forward by Russia, and it was not for the Conference to assume the existence of wrongs of which they had no knowledge.

not to be mistaken, and, indeed, this is admitted by Count Nesselrode; but the Russian Government, while disclaiming all pretension to exercise a protectorate, yet affirms that all these religious privileges and immunities are direct consequences of the treaty, which was, doubtless, a solemn engagement taken by Turkey towards Russia; and the fulfilment of that engagement, but no more, it was the object of the Conference to secure. By Count Nesselrode's interpretation of the Note, however, Russia would, under the 7th article of the treaty, be entitled to superintend all these privileges and immunities, which are of that peculiar character that she would be constantly able, if so minded, to interfere between the Sultan and his subjects; and thus the religious protectorate, which is abjured, and the new rights and extended influence, which are equally disclaimed, would be established.

"It is superfluous to say that no such intention was entertained by the Conference; nor can the treaty of Kainardji, by any subtlety of reasoning, be so construed. By the 7th article of that treaty the Porte promises to protect the Christian religion in all its churches throughout the Ottoman dominions; but, by the same article, the Ministers of Russia are permitted to make representations in favour of a new church and its ministers; and this clause would have been wholly unnecessary if Russian diplomacy had also been allowed to make representations on every matter connected with religion. If the article bore the sense that Count Nesselrode now seeks to attach to it, and if the two contracting parties had been agreed upon it, it is reasonable to suppose that

at the signing of the treaty a stipulation so important as that of maintaining the privileges and immunities of the Greek church would not have been omitted.

"The third objection raised by Count Nesselrode is, even more than the two which precede it, at variance with the intention of the Conference, which assuredly was not that the Sultan should enter into an engagement with Russia to concede to the Greek church all such advantages as might be granted to other Christian denominations, but only those advantages which were conceded to communities who, like the Greeks, were Ottoman subjects.

"The spiritual head of the Roman Catholics in Turkey, as elsewhere, is a foreign Sovereign; and if it pleased the Sultan to enter into a concordat with the Pope, conferring privileges upon Roman Catholics not subjects of the Porte, surely that ought to confer no right upon the Emperor of Russia to claim all the benefits of that concordat for the Greek community, subjects of the Porte, whose spiritual head, the Patriarch of Constantinople, is also a subject of the Sultan.

"No Christian community being subjects of the Sultan would have any right to participate in the privileges and advantages that the Sultan might confer upon Russian convents, ecclesiastics, or laymensuch, for example, as the Russian church and hospital about to be built at Jerusalem; and in the same manner the Greek community, consisting of many millions, would have no right to participate in advantages granted to foreign convents or ecclesiastics, and which might not, for many and obvious reasons, be fitting for a Chris

tian community subject to the Porte.

In fact, if the Sultan has at any time, in the exercise of his Sovereign authority, conferred religious privileges upon a community not subject to him, or if he at any future time should think proper to do so, Count Nesselrode claims that Russia should have a right to demand that several millions of Greeks, who are subjects of the Porte, should at once be placed upon the footing of foreigners, and should enjoy, through the intervention of Russia, all the advantages which the Sultan, for reasons of which he is the only competent judge, may have granted to such foreigners.

66

How such a claim can be reconciled with the professed desire for the maintenance of existing treaties and the strict status quo in religious matters, it is not for Her Majesty's Government to explain ; but they consider that it exhibits a total disregard for the feelings and interests of the European Powers, who, in common with Russia, have declared that they will uphold the independence of Turkey, and who cannot therefore see with indifference that Russia should thus surreptitiously seek to obtain a virtual protectorate over the Christian subjects of the Porte. And, with respect to Count Nesselrode's supposition, that some new privilege, not mentioned in the recent firmans, might be granted to the Roman Catholic establishment in Palestine, to the prejudice of the native communities, his Excellency appears to have overlooked that, by the Vienna Note, the Porte engages that no change shall be made in the order of things lately established at Jerusalem, without previous communication with

the Governments of Russia and France.

"I have now fully stated in what spirit and with what intentions the Vienna Note was framed; but, in interpreting it as Count Nesselrode has done, by his objections to the modifications, his Excellency not only does not prove, but he does not even advert to, any obligation by which the Porte is bound to make concessions utterly irreconcilable with its independence."

In the meantime the public mind at Constantinople had become strongly excited; and it was. well known that in the Council there was a party, at the head of which was Mehemet Ali, the Seraskier or War Minister, opposed to the pacific policy of Reschid Pasha, and anxious, at all hazards, to declare war against Russia. On the 10th of September, a body of about forty softas, or students of the Koran, presented themselves before the Council, which was then assembled, and claimed an audience. On being admitted into the Council Chamber, they produced a petition, signed by numerous ulemas and softas, praying for war. The petition was principally composed of quotations from the Koran, enjoining war on the enemies of Islam, and it contained threats of disturbance if it was not complied with. Some of the Ministers endeavoured to reason with those who presented it, but the only answer they obtained was

"Here are the words of the Koran if you are Mussulmans you are bound to obey. You are now listening to foreign and infidel ambassadors who are the enemies of the Faith; we are the children of the Prophet; we have an army, and that army cries out with us for war, to avenge the insults which VOL. XCV.

the Ghiaours have heaped upon us." The national feeling was undoubtedly in favour of war, and caricatures were handed about in Constantinople, in which the supposed reluctance of England to take a decisive part in the impending struggle was made the subject of ridicule.

On the 5th of October, the Porte published a formal declaration of war, of which the following are the passages of most importance:The principal points to which the Government of His Majesty the Sultan desires to give prominence are these:-That from the very beginning his conduct has furnished no motive of quarrel, and that, animated with the desire of preserving peace, he has acted with a remarkable spirit of moderation and conciliation, from the commencement of the difference unto the present time. It is easy to prove these facts to all who do not wander from the path of justice and equity.

"Even supposing that Russia had a subject of complaint in relation to the Holy Places, she ought to have circumscribed her actions and solicitations within the limits of this question alone,

The total of the military forces of Turkey may be stated as follows:

Regi- Regis- War ments. tered. footing. 36 117,360 100,800 24 22,416 17,280

Infantry Cavalry Artillery. 6 Artillery in fortresses 4 Engineers 2 De- In Candia tached Tripoli 2 Corps

8,000
4,000 4,000

Tunis 2 4,000 4,000

and ought not to have raised pretensions which the object of her complaints could not sustain. She ought not, moreover, to have taken measures of intimidation, such as sending her troops to the frontiers, and making naval preparations at Sebastopol, on the subject of a question which might have been settled amicably between the two Powers. But it is evident that what has taken place is totally contrary to an intention of amicable settlement.

"The question of the Holy Places had been settled to the satisfaction of all parties; and the Government of His Majesty the Sultan had testified favourable dispositions on the subject of the guarantees demanded. In short, Russia had no longer any ground for raising any protest.

"Is it not seeking a pretext for quarrel, then, to insist, as Russia has done, upon the question of the privileges of the Greek Church granted by the Ottoman Government-privileges which the Government believes its honour, its dignity, and its sovereign power are concerned in maintaining, and on the subject of which it can neither admit the interference nor the surveillance of any Government? Is it not Russia which has occupied with considerable forces the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, declaring at the same time that these provinces should serve as a guarantee until she had obtained what she desired? Has not this act been considered justly by the Sublime Porte as a violation of treaties, and consequently, as a casus belli? Have the other Powers themselves been able to come to any other decision? Who, then, will doubt that Russia has been the ag

gressor? Could the Sublime Porte, which has always observed all her treaties with a fidelity known to all, by infringing them in any way do more than determine Russia to a proceeding so violent as that of herself infringing all these treaties? Again, have there arisen, contrary to the promise explicitly given in the treaty of Kainardji, such facts in the Ottoman empire as the demolition of Christian churches, or obstacles opposed to the exercise of the Christian religion?

"The Ottoman Cabinet, without desiring to enter into too long details on these points, doubts not that the high Powers, its allies, will judge with perfect truth and justice on the statement just exhibited.

"As to the non-adoption of the Vienna Note in its pure and simple form by the Sublime Porte, it is to be remarked that this project, although not in every point conformed to the note of Prince Menschikoff, and while containing, it is true, in its composition some of the paragraphs of the draught note of the Sublime Porte, is not, as a whole, whether in letter or spirit, essentially different from that of Prince Menschikoff.

"The assurances recently given by the representatives of the Great Powers respecting the apprehended danger from hurtful interpretations of the draught note in question are a new proof of the kind intentions of their respective Governments towards the Sublime Porte. They have consequently produced a lively satisfaction on the part of the Government of His Majesty the Sultan. It must be remarked, however, that while we have still before our eyes a strife of religious