forcing her to accept such terms as would prove her ruin. Let it therefore be remembered that the new demand of Russia was simply to be secured by treaty in the rights which she then possessed.

She asked nothing which had not been previously granted and secured so far as customary use and verbal promise could avail, but fearing that Jesuit artifice and influence might induce the Ottoman Government to change its mind, Nicholas chose to ask the security of a written document, such as the other Powers had already obtained. This request, which history must yet pronounce a most reasonable one, Turkey, advised by France and England, refused.

France, England, Turkey, all were willing, perfectly so, to re-affirm existing treaties as Turkey construed them. But all parties were aware that existing treaties while they secured the rights desired by Roman Catholics, did not in like manner provide for those of the Greek Church. You have our word for it, was the reply of Turkey, and with that you should be satisfied. We agree to place the Greek Christians on the same footing with others. Let us have this in due form of treaty, was the answer of Russia, and we are satisfied. But Turkey refused.

We have the authority of the best English writers for stating that the promises given to Russia and the rights she enjoyed, did not differ from those of other Powers. "That engagement with Russia did not differ in principle "from any similar promise given to any other Power." Such is the language of the Edinburgh Review, in speaking of the engagements entered into between the Porte and the European Powers, including Russia, concerning the Christians in Turkey. Russia then had claimed nothing unusual, nothing which other Powers did not possess, and nothing which had not been verbally, and as she claimed, by treaty also, conceded to her already, and sanctioned by long use. What then was the point of difficulty so grave, so incapable of removal, as to produce this terrible war? Once more let it be repeated.

Turkey, by the advice of the Allies, refused to give Russia

any formal written legal security for her acknowledged rights, when this had already been done in regard to other Powers. She was willing to be bound by formal treaty in regard to the one million of Roman Catholics, when demanded by France and Austria, but she insisted that her unsupported word was enough for Russia, and the twelve millions of Greek Christians, and in this position she was supported by England and France. They insisted that Russia should not have a legal and formal right to privileges which all parties acknowledged; and, of course, whenever France could persuade or overawe the Turkish Government, they could be denied altogether.

It was precisely the case of a man refusing to give any written obligation for a debt which he acknowledges to be just, leaving himself the privilege of repudiating it at his pleasure. No one could blame a creditor, under such circumstances, for endeavoring to secure himself; and history will justify Russia, first, in believing that Turkey did not intend to fulfill engagements to which she refused to bind herself in due form, and second, for attempting to secure. her acknowledged rights-and more especially when every movement showed that France was seeking to make it the occasion either of quarrel or of reviving her supremacy in the councils of Turkey.

"If," says the Edinburgh Review, "the new demands of "Russia were of a nature to confer upon her in a definite "and legal form, rights of protectorate over the Christian "subjects of the Porte, they were demands which called "for the resistance of Europe." The world will be inclined to ask why? Precisely such rights of protectorate had already been granted to France in "definite and legal form;" why then should they be refused to Russia, particularly when for a long time she had enjoyed them without dispute, and "they did not differ in principle" from what had been formally secured to others?

If Russia would be content with a mere "re-affirmation of existing treaties," France and England would agree to such a note; but all well knew that this settled nothing,

because the very sense insisted upon by Russia in the treaty of Kainardji was disputed by France, and finally by England also, when it suited her convenience, after her marriage with France. Russia asked only a stipulation confirming her construction of this treaty, but France and England refused to admit this construction, and consequently this proposal to re-affirm existing treaties was a mere specious device. The clause in the treaty of Kainardji is in these words: "The Sublime Porte promises constantly to protect the Christian religion and its churches."

This certainly in itself is sufficiently indefinite. But when Turkey, under this general rule, enters into certain specific relations with France and Austria, she fixes thereby her interpretation of the clause, or of her general obligations to Christian Powers, and Russia, beyond all dispute, has a right to insist upon a similar interpretation of the rule in her own case. This was her only demand, and this Turkey and the Allies refused.

When the blinding vail which diplomatic art has thrown over this transaction has been removed by time, the world will perceive that Russia was wronged by Turkey and the Allies, and that her only course was to submit to manifest encroachment, or prepare herself for resistance. But it may be asked, what motive could have influenced France and England to persevere, at the hazard of war, in resisting a just demand of Russia. The explanation is easy, and is given in few words by the Edinburgh Review: "That engagement with Russia did not differ in principle from any similar promise given to any other power. Greater danger attached to it in her case, from the alliance between the forms of Christianity in Russia and in Turkey."

This furnishes the key to the whole. Because there were in the Providence of God twelve millions of Greek Christians in Turkey, who could be influenced by Russia, and only one million of Roman Catholics that could be used by France, therefore if Russia should possess equal rights with other Christian Powers, she would have an advantage over them all; and therefore, while Roman Catholic interests

must be secured by solemn treaty, Russia must rely upon. the unsupported word of the Porte, a promise which could be repudiated at pleasure.

Such, when stripped of all the wrappage of diplomatic mystification, appears to be the real state of the "Eastern Question," in which the war originated, a war for which the world will yet hold France and England justly responsible. Russia saw that she was trifled with, and with reason felt that she was insulted, and she decided upon her course accordingly. In the whole history of earth, it will be difficult to discover an example where the real merits of a case have been more studiously concealed, and western Europe. and perhaps most in America, have been led to believe. that France and England were forced, much against their will, to enter into this war with Russia. In one sense this is true.

They were forced into a war because Nicholas would not consent, after the intrigue of France in regard to the Holy Places, to suffer his acknowledged rights to rest any longer upon the mere word of the Porte, or upon the language of a disputed treaty, where the similar rights of other Powers were guaranteed in due legal form. They were forced into a war, rather than permit an act of simple and manifest justice toward Russia. From their own testimony this verdict will assuredly be rendered by history in due time

CHAPTER XI.

THE PAPACY IN ITS CONNECTION WITH THE EASTERN QUESTION.

"War is going to break out between philosophy and faith, between politics and religion, between Protestantism and Catholicism; and the banner raised by France in this gigantic struggle will decide the fate of the world, of the Church, and, above all, of France herself."*

This feature of the religious aspect of the Eastern question is one which demands from us, as Americans, our most serious regard. The activity and zeal of the French Government in its efforts to obtain a controlling influence at Constantinople for the Roman Catholic Church, is only a part of a vast design which Rome has conceived for regaining her lost ascendancy over the world. She is making one last but mighty effort to place herself at the head of universal dominion.

She believes herself able even yet to carry out the design of Hildebrand and the Innocents, and subject all nations to her power once more. Americans should not forget that this claim to rule the world in the name of God, and as his only and proper representative on earth, has never for one moment been abandoned by the Papal Hierarchy, nor has their been an hour in her history, since the days of Gregory the Great, when she has not both designed and hoped to

De Custine's Russia.