CHAPTER IX. RUSSO-TURKISH WAR.-Origin and progress of the dispute respecting the Guardianship of the Holy Places in Palestine-French and Russian interference-Difficult position of the Turkish Government-Settlement of the Quarrel by a Firman of the Sultan-Arrival of Prince Menschikoff at Constantinople-His demands, and refusal by the Porte to accede to them-the Russian Embassy quits Constantinople-Firman of the Sultan in favour of the Greek Church-Statement of the views of the Turkish Government in a despatch from Reshid Pasha to Count Nesselrode-Memorandum of the Emperor of Russia in 1844Secret and Confidential Correspondence embracing the views of the Emperor relative to the Turkish Empire in the present year-Circular Note of Count Nesselrode-Conduct of the Ottoman Porte towards its Christian Subjects-The Russian forces cross the Pruth and occupy the Danubian Principalities-Protest of the Turkish Government. WHEN, in the beginning of out a cloud, and the hitherto un the year 1848, the Bourbon dynasty was overthrown in France by a revolution, and this was followed by insurrectionary movements throughout the Continent, it seemed almost inevitable that the passions then at strife would involve the different countries of Europe in a general war. The danger, however, passed away; and France, in which democratic fury had been most violent, and which had been the chief cause of alarm and disquiet, did not arm a single soldier against the public peace. The internal struggles between Governments and their subjects everywhere terminated in the victory of the former, and the various nations of the Continent seemed to have subsided into a state of profound tranquillity under the iron rule of despotic power. The horizon at the commencement of the present year was almost with broken peace, which has prevailed since 1815, between the Great Powers of Europe, had as fair a prospect of continuance as at any period in the history of the world. But the harmony was not destined to last; and the disruption took place in a quarter where it was least expected. Russia has involved herself in a quarrel with the Western Powers, in her attempt to coerce Turkey into a compliance with demands which would have been fatal to the independence of that Empire, and an obscure quarrel between Greek and Latin monks in Palestine, about shrines and relics and holy places, has led to the commencement of a war of awful magnitude, which seems likely to involve all Europe in a blaze. We will endeavour briefly to trace the origin of the dispute, and the course of events which have terminated in so lamentable a result. East," and the Emperor of Russia as "the Sovereign of the greater number of the followers of the Greek church." As a preliminary step, it was thought advisable that each of the two countries should send an Envoy into Palestine, for the purpose of obtaining accurate information on the points in dispute; and M. Marcellus was despatched by the French, and M. Daschkoff by the Russian Government. The result of their inquiries gave every hope of a speedy and satisfactory arrangement, when the outbreak of the Greek revolution in 1821 put a stop to the negotiations, and the subsequent troubles in the East prevented them from being resumed.* * M. Marcellus drew up a statement of the "possessions and prerogatives of the Latin Church in Palestine." Amongst the former he enumerates : IN THE CITY OF JERUSALEM. The members of the Greek and Latin churches have long been at variance respecting the guardianship of the Holy Places in Palestine. Originally, by virtue of a treaty between Fran. cis I. and the then Sultan, in the sixteenth century, the Holy Places, and the monks who took care of them, were placed under the protection of the crown of France. But the Greeks gradually obtained firmans or grants from the Porte, and disputed the right of the Latin monks to the guardianship of the shrines. Many quarrels took place on the subject, until, in 1757, a serious collision arose between the members of the rival churches in Palestine. The matter was referred to the Divan at Constantinople, and the result was that a hatti-scheriff, or Imperial ordinance, was promulgated, which declared that the Latins should be expelled from the Church of the Tomb of the Virgin and the Church of Bethlehem, and that the Holy Sepulchre great and the small cupola, with the lead and other sanctuaries named should be placed under the guardianship of the Greek monks. In 1808 the Holy Sepulchre was partially destroyed by fire, and the Greeks obtained a firman from the Porte authorising them to rebuild the edifice. On the strength of this they claimed additional rights and prerogatives, and these led to fresh dissensions with the Latins, which at last caused such scandal that in 1819 the Russian and French Governments interfered, as representing respectively the Greek and Latin churches. The King of France claimed to act on the occasion as "the hereditary protector of the Catholics in the therein "1. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre. 2. The Monastery of Deirul-Amoud, or the Holy Saviour, its appurtenances and dependencies. 3. The Sepulchre of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is in the centre of the church of the same name. 4. The which covers them. 5. The arches and columns which are round them, as far as the iron gates placed to mark the line at which the part of the church belonging to the Greeks commences. 6. The galleries and dwellings of the Latin Monks which are over the aforesaid arches or columns. 7. The great arch which is surmounted with the cupola, which is over the above mentioned iron gates. 8. The chamber which is at the end of the wall of the abovementioned great arch. 9. The chandeliers placed by His Majesty the King of France under this same great arch. 10. The stone called after St. Mary Magdalen, and the entire space which extends from the step of the Vestry of the Frank Monks to the steps of the gate of the Cistern, and from beneath the columns to the steps of the Catholic chapel. 11. The upper part of the seven arcades called the Arches of St. Mary. 12. The lower portion of those arches. 13. The small altar which is In 1850, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, so well known as Sir Stratford Canning, our Minister at Constantinople, foresaw that difficult complications might arise out of what seemed a trivial dispute. In the month of May, that year, he wrote to Viscount Palmerston, and said," General Aupick has assured me that the matter in dispute is a mere question of property, and of express treaty stipulation. But it is difficult to separate any beneath the said arches. 14. The entire space from the stone of St. Mary Magdalen to the large gate which is beside the door of the Greek Chapel, and from the wall of the said chapel to the wall of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. 15. The lower part of the grotto of the finding of the Holy Cross. 16. The half of Mount Calvary, called the Place of Crucifixion. 17. The four arches of Mount Calvary, in the lateral part of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. 18. Its two altars. 19. The marble resting chair. 20. The stone of unction. 21. The entire space which extends from the steps of Mount Calvary to the lower part of the arcade in possession of the Armenians, and from the wall of the Greek chapel to the steps of the door of the Temple of the Holy Sepulchre. 22. The chapel called the Exterior Calvary, placed on the top of the temple, to which the ascent is by a stone staircase." In addition to these, he mentions 31 other Holy Places as belonging to the Latin Church, and he thus describes its "prerogatives: "— "1. The Fathers of the Holy Land, Latin Monks, alone possess the keys of the gates of the convents or sanctuaries above-mentioned, and particularly the three keys of the altar of the manger at Bethlehem. 2. They have a right to guard those places, to repair, maintain, decorate, and light lamps there. 3. To celebrate the Holy Mass there, and to exercise the rites and ceremonies of their worship. 4. To take the lead over all other nations in their visitation of the pilgrimages of the Holy Places. 5. They have a right to visit the half of Mount Calvary which does not belong to them, to celebrate mass on the aforesaid half, and to light lamps there. 6. The Frank Monks have an exclusive right to exercise their worship in the lower part of the cavern of the great Church of Bethlehem. 7. To prevent other nations from lighting lamps there to celebrate their offices, and to exercise their religious worship there. 8. To oppose the visits of other nations to the Holy Places possessed by them, the Frank Monks. 9. The actions at law brought against the Frank Monks shall not be submitted to the authorities of the country, but referred to the Sublime Porte at Constantinople. 10. The Maugrebins are forbidden to offer any violence to the Frank Monks at Aining'arim, under any pretext. 11. The Turkish Customs officers are forbidden to search the baggage of the monks or Catholic pilgrims which had been searched in the Levant where they landed. 12. It is likewise forbidden to take or delay the clothes of the monks or the ornaments of the Latin Churches. 13. To compel the Frank Monks to receive base coin. 14. To take money from them. 15. It is forbidden to demand the smallest fee from the Frank Monks for the privi lege of burying their dead. 16. To ill treat the monks who bring the usual tribute from Europe, in case they arrive too late. 17. To disturb, in any manner, the monks and pilgrims of the Holy Land, in the course of their visitations or pilgrimages. 18. To disturb them at any time in the exercise of their religious worship, as long as that worship out of doors is not contrary to the Mussulman laws. 19. The Turkish authorities are forbidden to pay more than one visit each year to the Holy Sepulchre. 20. To compel the Frank Monks to purchase damaged wheat. 21. The Latin Fathers possess an exclusive right to send members of their communities or couriers to Constantinople, on business, without opposition." usurped property which belongs of right to the Roman Catholics, and of having purposely allowed the chapels, and particularly the monuments of Godefroi de Bouillon and of Guy de Lusignan, to go into decay." Lord Stratford was then directed by the English Government to watch the progress of the dispute, but take no part in it. The basis on which the French Envoy, General Apick, at this period rested the claims of the Latin monks, was a treaty or capitulation, granted to France in 1740 by the Porte, the 33rd article of which was as follows:"The Latin monks residing at present, as heretofore, within and without Jerusalem, and in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre called Edmamé, shall continue to possess the places of pilgrimage which they now possess, in the same manner as they have heretofore possessed them, and they shall not be molested by demands for contributions. And if they should be engaged in any lawsuit which cannot be decided on the spot, it shall be referred to our Sublime Porte." And the Holy Places which he claimed on behalf of the Latins, as guaranteed to them by this article, were-1. The Great Church of Bethlehem. 2. The Sanctuary of the Nativity, with the right of placing a new star there (that which formerly ornamented the sanctuary having been lost), and changing the tapestry of the grotto; to act there, in fact, as exclusive possessors. 3. The Tomb of the Virgin. 4. The Stone of Anointing. 5. The Seven Arches of the Virgin, in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. And 6. the French Government further claimed for the Frank religious communities the right of repairing the cupola of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, and that all things should be replaced in it in the same state in which they were before the fire which took place in that church in 1808. The Ottoman Porte proposed that a mixed Commission should adjudicate upon these claims, after considering the treaty and various firmans which had been granted on the subject; but considerable delay took place, and in 1851 General Aupick was succeeded by M. de Lavalette as French Minister at the Porte, who warmly took up the question of the Holy Places. In the meantime Russia began to manifest an interest in the dispute, and, shortly afterwards, M. de Titoff, the Envoy of that Power at Constantinople, expressed to the Sultan the conviction of the Emperor that no change would be allowed to take place as to the possession of the sanctuaries. M. de Lavalette then offered to withdraw the claim of the Latins to the exclusive possession, and to admit the principle of joint occupation of the places in dispute. M de Titoff, however, on the part of the Emperor of Russia, demanded the joint possession of some other sanctuaries, which at the time were occupied exclusively by the Latins; and this prevented an arrangement, and still further embarrassed the Turkish Government in its attempt to reconcile the unseemly difference between the two Christian Powers. It appears that, at the time of the treaty of 1740, there were nine sanctuaries within, and eight without, Jerusalem, which were exclusively occupied by the Latins; but of these the Holy Sepulchre and the court surrounding it under the great cupola, the Stone of Anointing or Unction, and the Grotto of the Manger at Bethlehem, had become the common property of the Latins and Greeks; or, at all events, the latter, as well as other Christian sects, had since 1740 participated in the enjoyment of them There were two sanctuaries which, in 1740, were common to all Christian nations, so far as regarded the right of performing religious ceremonies there, viz., Mount Calvary and the Church of the Tomb of the Virgin; and there were nine sanctuaries from which the Latins were and had been always excluded. In the meantime the mixed Commission had been appointed, and was proceeding with the case, when, in November, 1851, the Sultan proposed to transfer the investigation of the dispute from the Commission to a Special Council of State, composed of Members of the Ulemah (a Moslem Law Incorporation) and some of the principal Ministers. The cause of this change was said to be a suggestion from the Russian Government that the Commission showed too great a tendency to favour the views of France. The proposal was objected to by M. de Lavalette, on the ground that the examination of all the documents brought forward on behalf of the Latins had been for some time finished, and that, as no evidence had been adduced on the other side which opposed their right, the case was ripe for the decision of the Commissioners. The Council, however, was nominated, and the result of the tedious inquiry by it and the previous Commission, was the issuing of a firman by the Sultan in March, 1852. But previously to this, on the 9th of February that year, the Porte addressed a note to M. de Lavalette, in which it promised to concede to the Latins the right of officiating at the shrine of the Virgin near Jerusalem, together with keys to the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem. The firman of March declared that the Latins had no right to claim exclusive possession of either of the cupolas of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, or of Golgotha, or of the arches of the Holy Virgin, or of the Great Church of Bethlehem, or of the Holy Manger. "In former times," the document proceeded, "a key of the two gates of the Great Church of Bethlehem and of the Holy Manger was given to each of the Greek, Latin, and Armenian nations, a measure which was also confirmed by the firman delivered to the Greek nation in the year of the Hegira 1170, and that arrangement shall still continue." With regard to the Tomb of the Virgin, the firman declared that the claim of the Latins to exclusive possession of it was unfounded and inadmissible, and that the present decision of the Sultan confirmed and consolidated the rights which had been granted to the Greek subjects of his empire by his ancestors. This firman, of course, gave dissatisfaction to the Latins, but the French Government expressed their readiness to acquiesce in the decision, provided there was a declaration, on the part of the Ottoman Porte, that there was no intention of receding from the stipulations made in favour of France by previous treaties. There does not seem to be any real inconsistency between the note of the 9th of February and the firman of March, for the right to the possession of a key to the Church of Bethlehem, which was |