tude for the maintenance of the immunities and privileges of the Orthodox Greek Church in the Ottoman empire, the Sultans have never refused to confirm them anew by solemn acts.'

“It is natural, and there is nothing to be said against it, that the Emperors of Russia should testify their solicitude for the prosperity of the church and of the religion which they profess. But, according to the above-cited paragraph, it would be understood that the privileges of the Greek Church in the States of the Sublime Porte have only been maintained by the active solicitude of the Emperors of Russia.

"It is to be observed, however, that the fact of inserting in a note to be given by the Sublime Porte the above-mentioned paragraph, such as it is in the project, for religious privileges which, since the days of Mehemed the Conqueror, of glorious memory, down to the present day, have been octroyé, and maintained without the participation of any one whomsoever, would imply and offer pretexts to the Russian Government to pretend to mix itself up in such matters.

"No one could consent to draw upon himself the reproaches and the blame of his contemporaries, as well as of posterity, by admitting the establishment of a state of things as hurtful to the present as to the future.

"No servant of the august Imperial Ottoman Family dare or would be capable of putting into writing words which would tend to diminish the glory of the institutions which the Ottoman Emperors have founded by a spontaneous movement of their personal generosity and innate clemency.

up is the paragraph of the draft note relative to the treaty of Kainardji. As no one can deny that that treaty exists and is confirmed by that of Adrianople, it is quite clear that the precise provisions thereof will be faithfully observed.

"If by inserting the abovementioned paragraph the intention is entertained of considering the religious privileges as the natural result and recognised spirit of the treaty of Kainardji, the real and precise provision of that treaty is limited to the sole promise of the Sublime Porte to protect itself the Christian religion. The paragraphs which the Porte might insert as regards religious privileges, in the note it may sign, ought only to express, as has been at all periods declared, either in writing or by word of mouth, assurances proper to remove the doubts put forward by the Russian Government, and which form the subject of the dissensions.

If, finally, the object is only to obtain a renewal of the provisions of the treaty of Kainardji, the Sublime Porte might do it in a separate note.

"Now, the Imperial Govern

ment deems it of the highest importance, either that the paragraph relative to that treaty of the project sent shall be suppressed, or that, if it is maintained, the promise of protection contained in the treaty of Kainardji and the question of religious privileges shall be separated in so explicit a manner that it may be understood at a first glance that they are two different things.

It can

"And the third point is that of making the Greek rite participate in the advantages granted (octroyé) to other Christian rites. not be doubted that the Imperial Government will not hesitate to allow the Greek rite to participate, not only in the advantages which, of its free will, it has granted to other communities of the Christian religion professed by the communities, its subjects, but also in those which it may grant hereafter. It is, therefore, superfluous to add, that the Sublime Porte will be justified if it cannot admit the use of expressions so equivocal as those of conventions or private provisions in favour of a great community of so many millions of subjects who profess the Greek faith.

"Such being the points to which the Sublime Porte makes objections, it cannot, notwithstanding its supreme regard for the counsel of the Great Powers its allies, and its sincere desire to renew its relations with the Imperial Government of Russia, its friend and neighbour, it cannot, I say, prevent itself from confiding to the equity and justice of the Great Powers the considerations relative to its rights of sovereignty and to its independence.

lime Porte is accepted, or else if that of Vienna receives the desired modifications, the Ottoman Cabinet will not delay signing the one or the other of those two projects, and sending immediately an Ambassador Extraordinary, on condition of the evacuation of the Principalities. The Government of the Sublime Porte expects, in addition, a solid guarantee on the part of the Great Powers against any future intervention, and any occupation, from time to time, of the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. And the object of the Ottoman Government in providing itself with so many precautions is, to avoid anything which might lead to a renewal of the misunderstanding between the two empires when the Sublime Porte shall have renewed its relations with the Court of Russia.

"The points of the project of Vienna, relative to the affair of the Holy Places, and to the construction of a church and hospital at Jerusalem, have received the complete adhesion of the Sublime Porte."

At the same time the Porte declared its readiness to accept the Vienna note if the modifications it proposed were acceded to by the Emperor.

In a despatch from Count Nesselrode to Baron Meyendorff at Vienna, dated St. Petersburg, August 26, O.S. (September 7, N.S.), he thus vindicated the refusal of the Emperor to accept the modifications of the Vienna note proposed by the Ministers of the Sultan:

"On the receipt of the first draught of a note, without waiting to learn if it had been approved in London or in Paris, we notified our accession to it by telegraph.

Subsequently the draught was forwarded to us in its final form, and although it had been altered in a direction which we could not misunderstand, we did not retract our consent, nor raise the smallest difficulty. Could greater readiness or a more conciliatory spirit be shown? When we thus acted, we did so, as a matter of course, on the condition that a draught which the Emperor accepted without discussion should be accepted by the Porte in a similar manner. We did so under the conviction that Austria looked on it as an ultimatum, in which nothing was to be changed as the last effort of her friendly mediation, which, should it fail in consequence of the pertinacity of the Porte, would thereby of itself come to an end. We regret that it was not so. But the Vienna Cabinet will admit, that if we had not to do with an ultimatum, but with a new draught of a note, in which either of the parties concerned was at liberty to make changes, we should thereby recover the right, of which we had of our own accord deprived ourselves, of proposing variations on our part, of taking the proposal of arrangement into consideration, and not only changing the expressions, but also the form.

"Could such a result be intended by Austria? Could it be agree able to the Powers, who, by altering and accepting her draught, have made it their common work? It is their affair to consider the delays which will result from this, or to inquire if it is for the interest of Europe to cut them short. We see only one single means of putting an end to them. It is for Austria and the Powers to declare to the Porte, frankly and firmly, that they, after having in vain

opened up to it the only road that could lead to an immediate restoration of its relations with us, henceforth leave the task to itself alone. We believe, that as soon as the Powers unanimously hold this language to the Porte, the Turks will yield to the advice of Europe, and, instead of reckoning on her assistance in a struggle with Russia, will accept the note in its present form, and cease to compromise their position so seriously for the childish satisfaction of having altered a few expressions in a document which we had accepted without discussion. For of these two positions only one is possibleeither the alterations which the Porte requires are important, in which case it is very simple that we refuse to accede to them; or they are unimportant, and then the question arises, why should the Porte unnecessarily make its acceptance dependent on them?

66

To sum up succinctly what we have said, the ultimatum drawn up at Vienna is not ours. It is the work of Austria and the Powers, who, after having first of all agreed to it, then discussed it, and altered its original text, have recognised it as such as the Porte could accept without its interests or its honour being compromised. We, on our part, have done everything that depended upon us to shorten unnecessary delays, inasmuch as when the arrangement was laid before us we renounced all counterpropositions. No one will refuse to bear this testimony to the loyauté of the Emperor. After our having long exhausted the measure of concessions, without the Porte's having as yet made a single one, His Majesty can go no further without compromising his own standing, and without expos

ing himself to a resumption of his relations with Turkey under unfavourable auspices, which would deprive them for the future of all stability, and must inevitably produce a fresh and signal breach. Even now, further concessions with regard to the expressions of the note would be of no use, for we see by your despatch that the Ottoman Government is only waiting for our consent to the alterations made in the Vienna Note to make its signature, as well as its sending off an Ambassador to convey the latter hither, dependent on fresh conditions, and that it has already made inadmissible proposals with respect to the evacuation of the Principalities. As regards the lat ter point, we can only refer to the assurances and declarations contained in our despatch of the 10th of August, and repeat that the arrival of the Turkish Ambassador bearing the Austrian note without alterations will suffice at St. Petersburg for the orders to be issued to our troops to retire over the frontier."

There is no doubt that Russia had now a plausible ground of complaint. The Vienna note was a diplomatic blunder. The Emperor had at once accepted what the Conference proposed, and it seemed only fair that if the Sultan refused, he should be left to bear the consequences, or be coerced into assent. But the fact was, that the note was capable of an interpretation different from that which the four Great Powers intended, and the Ministers of the Sultan at once saw that it could be construed in a manner very injurious to the interests of Turkey. It is little to the credit of those who drew up the document, that it should have been so worded as to

render this possible, for as henceforth the Emperor of Russia took his stand upon the note, and refused to accept any modifications of it, and the four Great Powers felt themselves obliged to admit that the objections of Turkey were reasonable; they were in the false position of appearing to recede from their own award at the instance of one of the parties who declared himself dissatisfied.

But they were not without justification in so doing, for it immediately appeared that Russia insisted on that interpretation of the note which was not intended, but which the Turkish Government showed was possible.

The alterations made by the Ottoman Porte in the document were examined in detail by Count Nesselrode in a separate despatch addressed to Baron Meyendorff, at the same date as that last quoted, and as it is of importance to know the precise ground taken by Russia in this disastrous quarrel, we give the document entire.

In the Vienna draught it is said, 'If the Emperors of Russia have at all times evinced their active solicitude for the maintenance of the immunities and privileges of the Orthodox Greek church in the Ottoman empire,' &c.

all its meaning and sense. For no one assuredly disputes the active solicitude of the Sovereigns of Russia for the religion which they profess themselves, and which is that of their subjects. What it was designed to recognise is, that there has ever existed on the part of Russia active solicitude for her co-religionists in Turkey, as also for the maintenance of their religious immunities, and that the Ottoman Government is disposed to take account of that solicitude, and also to leave those immunities untouched.

"The present expression is the more unacceptable, since, by the terms which follow it, more than solicitude for the Orthodox religion is attributed to the Sultans. It is affirmed that they have never ceased to watch over the maintenance of its immunities and privileges, and to confirm them by solemn acts. However, it is precisely the reverse of what is thus stated, which, having more than once occurred in times past, and specifically in the affair of the Holy Places, has compelled us to apply a remedy to it, by demanding a more express guarantee for the future. If we lend ourselves to the admission that the Ottoman Government has never ceased to watch over the maintenance of the privileges of the Greek church, what becomes of the complaints which we have brought forward against it? By doing so we admit that we had no legitimate grounds of complaint; that Prince Menschikoff's mission was without motive; that, in a word, even the Note which it has addressed to us was wholly superfluous.

"2. The suppressions and additions of words introduced into this passage with marked affectation

are evidently intended to invalidate the treaty of Kainardji, while having the appearance of confirming it.

66

prejudice

It was said in the note originally drawn up at Vienna, that, 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 religion, the Sultan considers himself bound in honour to preserve from all the immunities and privileges granted to the Orthodox church.' These terms, which made the maintenance of the immunities to be derived from the very spirit of the treaty, that is to say, from the general principle laid down in the 7th article-were in conformity with the doctrine which we have maintained and still maintain. For, according to us, the promise to protect a religion and its churches implies of necessity the maintenance of the immunities enjoyed by them. They are two inseparable things. These terms, originally agreed upon at Vienna, were subsequently first modified at Paris and at London; and, if we did not object to this at the time, as we should have been entitled to do, it is not that we misunderstood the purport of that alteration. We clearly perceived the distinction made between two points which, in our estimation, are indissolubly connected with each other; but this distinction was, however, marked with sufficient delicacy to admit of our accepting, from a spirit of conciliation, and from a desire of speedily arriving at a definitive solution, the terms of the note as they were presented to us, which we thenceforth looked upon as unalterable.