suggestion was at any rate worthy of consideration. What was the Turkish reply? That such an arrangement would be inconsistent with the sovereignty and independence of Turkey. But M. Veniselos did not find it inconsistent with the sovereignty and independence of Greece; why was Turkey so abnormally sensitive? This argument was advanced by the Turks in connection with every question discussed and every guarantee proposed. He implored the Turks not to take refuge in mere words like these. No one wanted to interfere with their independence or sovereignty; everyone wanted to build up a sovereign independent Turkish State; but no solution would ever be reached if every statement made were to be met by Turkey wrapping herself up in her cloak and saying that the proposal was incompatible with her sovereign independence. Let the Turkish delegation deal with realities-not phrases-and abandon their suspicions; let them work loyally with the other delegations under conditions which would ensure Turkey not universal suspicion, but universal respect.

He would now deal with the reply just made by Ismet Pasha to his (Lord Curzon's) remaining suggestions. He had suggested that a general amnesty was one of the first measures to be taken. He understood, but was not quite sure, that Ismet Pasha accepted this in principle. No doubt Ismet Pasha would correct him if he were

wrong.

The second suggestion concerned compounding for military service. M. Veniselos had said that conscription was not applied to the Turkish minorities in Greece. Ismet Pasha appeared to refuse absolutely to allow a compounding fee to be paid for exemption from military service. Lord Curzon had two remarks to make in this connection. Firstly, if, as the Turks now contended, a military commutation fee was impossible and illegal, how was it that the Turks were at this moment levying a fee of £T. 100 on Christian males of military age leaving Constantinople? Secondly, there was no doubt that in bygone years the law of conscription as enforced on Christian minorities in Asia Minor had been a source of great oppression, of illegal exactions and much suffering. These commutation fees had been paid hundreds of times over-and everyone knew it-by wretched men who had given what they could to escape the penalties of military service. Let them look facts in the face. If the matter were pursued further, he hoped that the Turkish delegation would adopt a much more reasonable attitude.

He was glad to hear that the Turkish delegation had accepted a proposal put forward by him on the previous day that there should be freedom of movement and power to leave the country for the minorities both in Turkey and in Greece.

There remained the question of special guarantees for the minorities in Turkey and Greece, somewhat on the lines of those introduced into the European treaties. As M. Veniselos had just said, these guarantees had been voluntarily introduced by the victorious Powers. A little while ago the Turkish Government

accepted a similar obligation. Article 5 of the National Pact ran as follows:

"The rights of minorities as defined in the treaties concluded between the Entente Powers and their enemies and certain of their associates shall be confirmed and assured by us in reliance on the belief that Mussulman minorities in neighbouring countries also will have the benefit of the same rights.'

There was nothing in this article about those guarantees being inconsistent with the sovereign rights of Turkey. Surely, the Turkish delegation would be proud to carry out one of the main provisions of the pact to which they were constantly appealing. It still remained to decide how these provisions should be reproduced and possibly supplemented. This was a question which could best be examined by the proposed sub-commission, but before that body began its work he desired to address a few words to his Excellency Ismet Pasha :

"I have this morning ventured to use very serious language, because in this question and in many others the Turkish delegation seem hardly to realise the position in which the conference is placed. As I have often said, this conference has one purpose only. My object and that of my Allies has always been to remove barriers in the way of attaining that purpose; the object of the Turkish delegation is apparently to create barriers. This cannot go on indefinitely. Europe has other thing to do; we have other things to do. The minorities problem excites more attention throughout the world than anything else, and by the manner in which it is solved will this conference be judged.

"If the Turks adopt an unreasonable attitude upon this: if we break down upon this: if we have to go away, will there be a single voice lifted up for the Turkish delegation in the whole world? They may get some support at Angora; I do not know. They will get nothing anywhere else. I venture to hope that the Turkish delegation will bear in mind these few remarks of mine, with which I know my colleagues agree, and which are couched in a spirit of friendship and regard, but are quite deliberate.'

ISMET PASHA reserved his reply to Lord Curzon for later on. But he insisted on laying immediate stress on the fact that, in his vehement refutation of the Turkish arguments, Lord Curzon had attributed to him statements which he had never made and ideas which he had no recollection of having expressed. It would be really too easy to win a case in this manner.

(The commission rose at 150 P.M.)

No. 18.

TERRITORIAL AND MILITARY COMMISSION.

Minutes of the Fifteenth Meeting, December 14, 1922, at 10 30 A.M., under the presidency of Lord Curzon.

M. Massigli, Secretary-General of the Conference.

ISMET PASHA said that he had listened attentively and with great respect to the speech made the day before by Lord Curzon. He was unfortunately compelled to note that the sentences and words which Lord Curzon had used differed from those employed by him hitherto. The truth, as shown by historical evidence ever since the days of Mehmed II, was that the minorities, by continual and persistent misuse of the privileges granted to them and by making themselves the instrument of foreigners, had brought about the deplorable results which had ensued. For his own part Ismet Pasha regretted most acutely that the present situation should have arisen.

In response to Lord Curzon's enquiry, Ismet Pasha hastened to state that he had no complaint to make against Soviet Russia. Lord Curzon, when answering Ismet Pasha's statements regarding the affection shown by the Turkish Government towards the loyal Armenians, had enquired how it came about that out of 3,000,000 Armenians formerly resident in Turkey only 130,000 remained, and why 60,000 of the latter had emigrated into Cilicia. The Turkish delegation thought that there must be some error in the figure of 3,000,000 Armenians in Turkey, for they had never seen such a

figure in any statistics. The work of M. Vital Cuinet, from which most of the statistics published in Europe were derived, spoke of about 1,400,000 Armenians living in Turkey, the "Encyclopædia Britannica" of 1.500.000 and the official Turkish statistics of 1,290,000. The Armenians inhabiting parts of the Ottoman Empire which had been detached from Turkey must be deducted from all these figures. This proved that there had never been 3,000,000 Armenians in Turkey; in fact it was notorious that there was no such number of Armenians in the whole world. The Armenians were known to have left Cilicia before the departure of the French, and, consequently, before the arrival of the Turkish troops, and they acted thus despite the persistent endeavours of the French authorities to persuade them to remain in their homes. This population had been compelled to go, against its own will, by agents of revolutionary committees, whose objects were political. The people who expatriated themselves in this way confessed to the Moslems before their departure with tears that they had no desire to leave, but were afraid of the revolutionary committees. Moreover, these facts were known to everybody. What, then, had become of those who were now missing according to the statistics just given? The answer must be sought in the wars which had taken place and had been forced upon Turkey. These wars had also resulted in the transformation of the happiest, richest and most famous regions of Anatolia into a field of ruins. The Moslem population in the eastern provinces of Turkey had dropped from 4,000,000 to less than 3,000,000, and in the western provinces which had been invaded, from 3,500,000 to about 2,000,000. Those missing-i.e., nearly 2,500,000 people-were victims of the disastrous years of war. However, Ismet Pasha, in accordance with the desire expressed and the example set by Lord Curzon, also desired to leave the past aside, for he, too, was most anxious to make progress and attain peace. Lord Curzon had said that he detested the compulsory exchange of populations; but at the meeting of the commission on the 1st December, Lord Curzon had declared. that no solution was possible except the exchange of populations, and that, as voluntary exchange could not give any result, recourse must be had to compulsory exchange. He had added on the previous day that it was not fair to say that this proposal had first been made by the Greek Government.

Ismet Pasha further recalled the fact that the first proposal respecting this question had been made by an unofficial person, Dr. Nansen, whose unofficial capacity had been explicitly pointed out by Ismet Pasha himself. After Ismet Pasha the first official person who had spoken on this subject had been M. Veniselos, and then Lord Curzon. Moreover, a sub-commission had been formed for the sole purpose of studying this question and was on the point of completing its task.

Lord Curzon had asked whether it was impossible to find a corner for the Armenians in a country as large as Turkey. Ismet Pasha ventured to observe in this connection that there were other