AMID the din of arms and the fierce contest of battle, the less harmful,
but, perhaps, not the less potent war of opinion, the clash of
controversy, the dissemination of "views," are as busy at their work as
in the piping times of peace. As might have been anticipated, the
terrible struggle in which we are engaged has absorbed every other
feeling; and whether men agree or disagree respecting the cause, the
necessity, and the justness of the war, all are zealous and earnest in
advocacy or opposition. A vast majority of the nation believe in the
justness of England's position--believe that she exhausted every means,
and even went beyond the strict line of national respect, in seeking to
stay the hand of him who, in sanctimonious phrase, was ever ringing
changes on the theme of peace, and yet proved himself so eager to "cry
havoc, and let slip the dogs of war"--believe that no other course was
open to her--believe that if she wished to preserve her own dearly-won
liberties, she must stoutly oppose any further encroachments on the
rights and liberties of Turkey. A vast majority of the nation were, and
still are, firmly convinced of this, and have most emphatically declared
the firmness of that conviction by the enthusiasm of their support and
the wonderful liberality of their purses. Yet, notwithstanding the
clearness with which our course was marked out for us--notwithstanding
the steady and continuous aggression of Russia, now by secret fraud and
now by open force, since the time of Peter I. to the present day--there
is a party in England, and there are a number of Englishmen, who, taking
pre-conceived views to their study of the question, profess to find in
the Blue Books--in the documents issued by the Governments of the great
nations, England, France, Turkey, and Russia--sufficient reason to
condemn the policy which England has adopted, and to declare the war
dishonourable, unjust, and disgraceful. Among the party taking this view
are men of wealth and influence, and no pains or expense is spared in
propagating their opinions. Lecturers are busy going from town to town
disseminating partial and _ex parte_ statements of the cause of the war;
and letters and speeches, to which are added carefully collected extracts
from the Blue Books, are printed and gratuitously distributed by
thousands in order to indoctrinate the people with falsely-called peace
principles. The purpose of the present tract is to examine the
pretensions of this party, to test its statements, to complete the
quotations which have been so partially made, and by presenting a _full_
statement of facts, to enable the people to judge for themselves of the
worth of that advocacy and the justice of that cause which has to resort
to such expedients for its support and defence.
Mr. BRIGHT, in his Letter to Mr. ABSALOM WATKIN, says that "we are not
only at war with Russia, but with all the Christian population of the
Turkish Empire;" and Mr. GEORGE THOMPSON, in his Lecture on the War,
corroborated this statement by the curiously bold assertion, that the
"Greek Christians, who formed the mass of the population of Turkey in
Europe, were of a common faith, common hope, and acknowledge a common
headship with those of Russia." Now, what are the facts? The Greek
Church in Turkey considers the Russian Greek Church as schismatical and
heretical, and refuse, and have ever refused, to acknowledge the
Patriarchship of the Emperor of Russia. Of the 11,000,000 members of the
Greek Church who are the subjects of the Sultan, there are in the
Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia about 4,000,000; these, with the
exception of some 50,000 Hungarian Catholics, are of the Greek, but not
of the Russo-Greek, Church. Servia has also 1,000,000 of the same
persuasion, and equally averse to the Russian Czar-Patriarch; Servia has
also for a long time past been striving to shake off the influence of
Russia, and to unite herself more closely with her rightful ruler, the
Sultan. Besides these, there are 2,400,000 Eutychian Armenians, of which
40,000 belong to the Latin Church, and also more than 1,000,000 are Roman
Catholics and United Greeks. _None of these recognise the Patriarchship
of the Emperor of Russia_.
In order that the feeling of the Greek Church in Turkey respecting this
matter may be fully understood, I quote the following passage from an
address delivered by the Archimandrate Suagoaud to the Roumains,
(Moldo-Wallachians) in Paris, so late as January, 1853. The occasion was
this: the Roumains had asked permission from the French Government to
build a chapel in Paris, and the application was received with the very
pertinent question, (supposing them to be of the same Church as the Peace
Society do,) "Why do you not worship in the Russian Chapel already
erected in Paris?" Here is the answer: "When we expressed a desire to
found a Chapel of our own rite, we were told that a Russian Chapel
already existed in Paris, and we were asked why the Roumains do not
frequent it. What! Roumains to frequent a Russian place of worship! Is
it then forgotten that they can never enter its walls, and that the
Wallachians who die in Paris, forbid, at their very last hour, that their
bodies should be borne to a Muscovite Chapel, and declare that the
presence of a Russian priest would be an insult to their tomb. Whence
comes this irreconcilable hatred? That hatred is perpetuated by the
difference of language. The Russian tongue is Sclavonic; ours is Latin.
Is there, in fact, a single Roumain who understands the language of the
Muscovite? That hatred is just; for is not Russia our mortal enemy? Has
she not closed up our schools and debarred us from all instruction, in
order to sink our people into the depths of barbarism, and to reduce them
the more easily to servitude? On that hatred I pronounce a blessing; for
the Russian Church is a schism the Roumains reject; because the Russian
Church has separated from the great Eastern Church; because the Russian
Church does not recognise as its head the Patriarch of Constantinople;
because it does not receive the Holy Unction of Byzantium; because it has
constituted itself into a Synod of which the Czar is the despot; and
because that Synod, in obedience to his orders, has changed its worship,
has fabricated an unction which it terms holy, has suppressed or changed
the fast days and the Lents as established by our bishops; because it has
canonised Sclavonians who are apocryphal saints, such as Vladimir, Olgo,
and so many others whose names are unknown to us; because the rite of
Confession, which was instituted to ameliorate and save the penitent, has
become, by the servility of the Muscovite clergy, an instrument for spies
for the benefit of the Czar; in fine, because the Synod has violated the
law, and that its reforms are arbitrary, and are made to further the
objects of despotism. These acts of impiety being so notorious, and
these truths so known, who shall now maintain that the Russian Church is
not schismatic? Our Councils reject it, our canons forbid us to
recognise it, our Church disowns it; and all who hold to the faith and
whom she recognises for her children, are bound to respect her decision,
and to consider the Russian rite a schismatic rite. Such are the motives
which prevent the Roumains from attending the Russian Chapel in
Paris."--(Quoted in _Blackwood's Magazine_, March, 1853.)
But even if they were of the same faith, the same hope, and acknowledged
the same common headship as the Russian Greek Church, upon what right
does Russia found her protectorate over these subjects of the Ottoman
empire? The following are the three articles in the treaty of Kainardji
which relate to the Turkish Greek subjects:--
"Article VII.--_The Porte_ promises to protect the Christian religion
and its churches; and the Ministers of Russia shall be allowed to make
representations in favour of the new church of which mention is made in
the 14th article.
"Article VIII.--The subjects of the Russian empire shall be permitted
to visit the city of Jerusalem and the Holy Places; and no duty or
contribution shall be exacted from them either at Jerusalem or
elsewhere.
"Article XIV.--The Court of Russia is permitted, besides the chapel
built in the Minister's house, to build in the quarter of Galata, in
the street named Bey Oglou, a public church of the Greek rite, which
shall always be under the protection of the Russian Minister, and
secure from all vexation and exaction."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 51.)
Now this treaty states, as plainly as words can do, that _the Porte_ is
to protect the Christian religion and its churches, and that the
protection of Russia is limited to the chapel to be built in the quarter
of Galata, in the street named Bey Oglou: yet upon this treaty Russia
claims her right to interfere, to occupy the Principalities for the
purpose of obtaining material guarantees; and the Peace Society agrees to
her claim and palliates, where it cannot justify, her acts.
Again, Mr. BRIGHT writes, "I have said nothing of the fact that all these
troubles have sprung out of the demands made by France upon the Turkish
Government, and urged in language more insulting than any which has been
shown to have been used by Prince Menschikoff."--(_Letter_, pp. 13-14.)
MR. THOMPSON, who appears to have made this letter the text for his
various lucubrations, reiterates the same charge. Let us carefully
examine this part of the subject. The claim of the French rests upon the
treaty of 1740, which "vindicates the right of the Latins to an exclusive
occupation of all the sanctuaries which they possessed at that time. The
conferences lately opened here, have resulted in a clear establishment of
that right as applied to the holy buildings--ten, I believe, in
number--most of which are now possessed jointly by the two communions,
and some exclusively by the Greeks. M. de LAVALETTE, _instead of pushing
his right to an extreme_, _took upon himself the responsibility of
declaring his readiness to extend the principles of joint possession to
the whole number_. * * He (M. de LAVALETTE) has acted with moderation
throughout; he has been careful not to commit his Government--he has made
no written communication except his opening note and such documents as
were necessary for establishing the joint commission of enquiry--and he
is anxious to act with moderation to the last; but at the same time he
thinks it impossible to submit with honour to the present plan of
proceeding; his Government, having embarked in the question, cannot, with
any degree of credit or consistency, stop short under the dictation of
Russia; the national party in France, the Catholic party there and
elsewhere, will press for the full assertion of right under treaty--and,
as for himself, he will retire rather than be made the instrument, as he
conceives he would be, in the supposed case of his country's humiliation;
nay more, if it depended upon him, he would not hesitate to make use of
the great naval force now possessed by France in the Mediterranean, and
by blockading the Dardanelles, bring the question in debate forthwith to
a satisfactory issue."--(_Sir Stratford Canning to Viscount Palmerston_,
_Nov._ 4, 1851; _Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 19.)
Those demands were supported by the plenipotentiaries of all the Catholic
Powers. England looked on without any personal interest in the question
itself; the Porte was anxious and unsettled, for Russia, through M. de
TITOFF, was loud in her demands for the _status quo_, and threatened to
leave Constantinople if it were disturbed. But this _status quo_ meant
Russia's interpretation of it--meant, Russia being fully accepted as the
Protector of the Greeks, which, as we saw, she strongly claimed from the
Hainardji Treaty; the _status quo_ which France desired was simply the
restoration of rights which had been allowed to fall in abeyance by the
Latins, and had, in some measure, been acquired by the Greeks.
I do not state here how very trifling to us appear the causes which led
to those demands, because we cannot appreciate all this pother being made
about the possession of a key or two, the building of a cupola, and the
putting up of a silver star; but to the Latins such questions are of
great importance; and politically they served as indices to measure the
influence which the French and Russians exercised in the East. I pass on
to the official documents narrating the development of this quarrel.
Colonel ROSE, writing to the Earl of MALMESBURY, Nov. 20, 1852, says,--
"A graver cause of difference than the great door of the Church of
Bethlehem has appeared, and taken precedence of it.
"The Porte, under the influence of French and Russian menaces,
conceded to the French Embassy the note of the 9th February, and the
Firman of the Mi-Fevrier to the Greeks.
"The Russian Government considers the Firman the Charter of Rights of
the Greek Church. The President and M. de LAVALETTE consider it an
affront to France, because it describes her claims, grounded on the
Treaty of 1740, as "haksig," unjust, and establishes a _status quo_
which wholly invalidates that Treaty. M. de LAVALETTE tells me that
the Porte promised to M. SABATIER that it should not be read at
Jerusalem.
"M. D'OZEROFF tells the Porte that the Firman must be read at
Jerusalem; he declares that if it be not read, according to usage, in
the Medgliss at Jerusalem, before the Pasha, Cadi, Members of the
Council, Patriarchs of the different sects, it will be valueless and
a dead letter, and that, consequently, faith will have been broken
with Russia."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 46.)
This irritable state of things assumed a more amicable aspect by December
4, 1852: writing at that date, Colonel ROSE says,--
"M. de LAVALETTE now says that nothing can be more pleasant and
amiable (plus doux et plus aimable) than he is with the Porte. I
humbly and respectfully demand my right. (Je demande humblement et
respecteusement mon droit). M. d'OZEROFF also says, that although he
admitted that last year there had been a declaration that the Russian
Legation would, under certain circumstances, leave Constantinople,
yet, that he could not bring to his recollection having talked of the
Legation leaving it on account of present causes of differences with
the Porte."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., pp. 49-50.)
While the question of the Holy Places was thus winding its weary way
along, the Emperor of Russia was ordering troops to the frontiers of the
Danubian Provinces. On the 4th of January, 1853, Sir G. H. SEYMOUR
writes to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, that "orders have been dispatched to the 5th
corps d'armee to advance to the frontiers of the Danubian Provinces,
_without waiting for their reserves_; and the 4th corps, under the
command of General Count DANNENBERG, and now stationed in Volhynia, will
be ordered to hold itself in readiness to march if necessary. Each of
these corps consists of twenty-four regiments, and, as your Lordship is
aware, each Russian regiment is composed of three battalions (each of
about 1000 men), of which one battalion forms the reserve. General
LUDER'S corps d'armee accordingly, being now 48,000 strong, will receive
a reinforcement of 24,000 men soon after its arrival at its destination,
and supposing the 4th corps to follow, the whole force will amount at
least, according to official returns, to 144,000 men."--(_Blue Book_,
vol. i., p. 56)
January 28, 1853, Colonel ROSE says, "Both the French and Russian
Representatives exhibit now most laudable moderation in the matter of the
Holy Places."--(_Blue Book_, vol. i., p. 79.)
And now new events occur in this strange drama. The three great
Powers--England, France, and Russia--remove their ambassadors and appoint
new ones. England sent Viscount STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE, France, M. de la
COUR, and Russia, the notorious Prince MENCHIKOFF. The first act of the
Russian officer was an insult to the Porte--an insult committed with
intention, and at once indicating both the character of the mission and
of the man appointed to execute it. Colonel ROSE writes to Lord JOHN
RUSSELL, March 3, 1853, "A painful sensation was caused here by the
following incident, which occurred yesterday:--Prince MENCHIKOFF paid his
official visit to the Grand Vizier, at the Porte, but purposely omitted
to pay it to FUAD EFFENDI, who was ready to receive him."--(_Blue Book_,
vol. i., p. 85.)