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,—