mankind be deeply wounded, but also the adoption of such a proposal would be impossible from the canonical point of view. The Patriarch was in point of fact the Archbishop of Constantinople-of that new Rome, which, owing to its prosperity in the 4th and 5th centuries, had been raised to the dignity of an Ecumenical Patriarchate by a decision of all the Christian Churches, including that of Rome. No one in the world could separate these two attributions. The matter was so serious that if the Patriarch were compelled to leave Constantinople, the Greek orthodox community would lose the spiritual head of its Church; if perchance some other person were to assume that title he would be schismatic and excommunicated ipso facto. It would therefore be futile to endeavour to give guarantees to the non-Moslem minorities if they were simultaneously deprived of their ancient ecclesiastical organisation.

In conclusion, M. Veniselos reminded the commission that the demand of the Turkish delegation went beyond the terms of the Angora Pact, which recognised that the non-Moslem minorities were entitled to the same guarantees as those granted to minorities by the European treaties. The treaties signed by Roumania and Greece included provisions for safeguarding the religious autonomy of the protected minorities. What was more, the Turkish Government, in its reply to the note from the Allied Governments of the 23rd September, 1922, undertook once more to give these guarantees to the non-Moslem minorities. It was on this condition, among others, that the Greek Government had agreed to give satisfaction to Turkey by consenting to evacuate Eastern Thrace.

The Turkish delegation must be aware that the whole Orthodox Church was united in demanding the maintenance of its head at Constantinople. If Russia had not been prevented from taking part in the present conference owing to the exceptional régime now existing in that country, the delegations would have heard through her the entreaty of over 100,000,000 of the faithful, begging that there should be no interference with the Primate of the Orthodox Church. There were thus more than 140,000,000 men who requested the Turkish delegation not to injure the institution of the Patriarchate. The orthodox nations were not alone in making this demand. The inviting Powers had joined in their appeal, and the commission had heard the formal declaration of the Government of the United States of America, which despite its being so far away had insisted most earnestly that the Patriarchate ought to be maintained at Constantinople. It was inconceivable that the Turkish delegation could remain indifferent to the appeal of that great democracy, whose conscience would certainly be wounded by an adverse decision.

M. Veniselos hoped that in view of Lord Curzon's proposal, in which he entirely concurred, the Turkish Government would not insist on removing the Patriarchate from Constantinople once it had been divested of its political prerogatives. Its maintenance in that city was, moreover, of advantage to Turkey herself, for it was not a matter of no concern to Constantinople that it should continue to be the residence of the head of the Orthodox Church. Finally, in the event of Lord Curzon's proposal being accepted by the Turkish

Government, the Greek delegation were ready to take steps with a view to the retirement of the Patriarch now in power.

ISMET PASHA said that he had studied with the closest attention the report of the sub-commission which had been required to examine the questions of the exchange of prisoners and populations, and had listened to M. Montagna's remarks on the subject.

He was obliged to observe that certain questions, which had not been settled so far as the Turkish delegation knew, were represented in the report as having been definitely solved, and also that some errors of considerable importance had crept in as regards certain other questions.

The Turkish delegation had never said that the Turkish civilians detained in Greece numbered 4,000; on the contrary, they had stated that there were no less than 10,000. As a matter of fact, the information received by them up to the present time showed that the number of Turkish civilian prisoners in Greece, including persons removed from Anatolia and Eastern Thrace, amounted to 9,595 men, 251 women and 11 children, or 9,857 persons in all. The Turkish delegation had already communicated a partial list of these detained persons, and were continuing to add to it.

There were now no Hellenic hostages in Turkey, and moreover the Greek delegation had told the sub-commission that they had no information on this matter, concerning which they had not been able to make any statement at all.

When all the civilian prisoners named in the lists communicated by the Turkish delegation and all Turkish prisoners of war had been handed back to Turkey, the liberation of a number of Greek prisoners equal to that of the released Turkish prisoners of war was to be effected. It would necessarily take some time to verify all the figures in connection with this matter, and consequently it would not be possible for the Greek prisoners to leave by the ships which brought the Turkish prisoners back, for the former could not be sent home until after the numbers and complete liberation of all the latter, both civilian and military, had been verified.

However, this restoration of prisoners should be effected before the conclusion of peace, and as far as possible without loss of time.

Such Greek prisoners of war as remained in Turkey after the surrender of a number equal to that of the released Turkish prisoners were to be handed back after the conclusion of peace. The Turkish delegation had asked for the liberation of the Turkish civilian prisoners within one week, and of the prisoners of war within two weeks.

The Turkish delegation had repeatedly requested the Allied delegations to submit the decision taken regarding prisoners to the commission, independently of the question of exchange of populations. The restoration of prisoners, being a most urgent and purely humanitarian matter, ought not to be mixed up with the more complicated problem of exchange of populations.

The consequence of this request being declined had been to prolong the suffering and misery of the Turkish non-combatants. who had been carried off as hostages, and those of the unfortunate

[9454]

M 3

Turkish prisoners whose complaints were constantly reaching the Turkish delegation.

Ismet Pasha was obliged to state that it would be inequitable to decide that the solution of this question should be linked up with that of an intricate political problem.

It would be most unjust towards Turkey if Greece were allowed to prolong the sufferings of the Turkish non-combatants whom she had carried off as hostages.

The Turkish delegation had asked for a plebiscite with a view to deciding the fate of Western Thrace; it was therefore natural that they should also ask for the exclusion of the population in that country from the exchange.

The population of Constantinople had also not been included in the proposed exchange, because the Allied delegations had urged that the elements which constituted a factor of commercial and economic importance should not be removed all of a sudden from a city such as Constantinople, which was a great economic centre; and also because the Allies said that residents in towns could not be exchanged for residents in country districts. But the exchange ought not to be effected only between the inhabitants of villages, for there were many townspeople among the Turks who would have to leave Greece. Then again, the statement that the Greeks of Constantinople constituted an important economic factor was not a conclusive argument in favour of their being excluded from the compulsory exchange; everyone knew that they formed a class of small traders (grocers, &c.), and that it would not be difficult to replace them.

Despite all these reasonable contentions, and out of a spirit of conciliation, the Turkish delegation had agreed to accept the request of the other delegations that the Greeks of Constantinople should not in principle be subjected to the exchange.

They had, however, been obliged to insist on the inclusion in the exchange of certain categories of persons among the Greeks, and they hoped that the Allied delegations would be so good as to recognise the justice and soundness of their claim in this respect. The exceptions which they demanded were as follows:

1. Greeks who had come to Constantinople since the 30th October, 1918.

2. Greeks living outside the limits of the prefecture of the city of Constantinople, as laid down in 1912.

3. Hellenic individuals or associations which had taken part in anti-Turkish political movements.

These three categories ought to be included in the exchange.

As regards the question of the Patriarchate, Ismet Pasha took note before the commission of the solemn declarations and assurances which had just been delivered by the Allied and Greek delegations, whereby the Patriarchate was no longer to take any part whatever in affairs of a political or administrative character, and was to confine itself within the limits of purely religious matters.

In reply to certain supplementary remarks of M. Veniselos, Ismet Pasha observed that the rights of the minorities were settled by the

.

clauses relative thereto in the section of the treaty which had already been examined.

The removal of the Patriarchate from Constantinople had been proposed by the Turks at the time when the exemption of the Greeks in that city from the exchange of populations was being contemplated.

With a view to giving a supreme proof of the conciliatory disposition of the delegation over which he presided, Ismet Pasha withdrew this proposal under the conditions just stated by him, and in reliance on the assurances of which he had already taken note.

LORD CURZON said that he would not enter into the question of the immediate exchange of hostages and prisoners of war beyond expressing the hope that the exchange would be effected at once, whatever the numbers. But as regards the declaration with which Ismet Pasha had ended his remarks, Lord Curzon was gratified to note the spirit in which his Excellency received the suggestion made by him. He was sure that the commission would have received with great satisfaction the intimation contained in Ismet Pasha's last sentence, that the Turkish delegation renounced the project of requiring the departure of the Patriarch from Constantinople. He was convinced that this announcement had not only been received with great satisfaction in the conference room, but that it would produce a very considerable impression throughout the world and would facilitate the task upon which the conference was engaged.

M. VENIS LOS felt sure that, after the settlement of so important a question as that of the Patriarchate, the sub-commission would experience no difficulty in bringing the whole of its labours to a conclusion.

He pointed out that the question of interned civilians concerned persons who had been sentenced for common law offences during the period of military occupation and persons who were undergoing judicial enquiry in respect of similar offences, but in whose cases proceedings had been arrested at the time when the armistice was signed. He urged that agreement should be reached as soon as possible in regard to the exchange of prisoners of war and of the able-bodied men arrested in Asia Minor. As a result of the action of the Turkish Government in retaining the portion of the Greek population which was capable of military service, it was remnants of families rather than families who had come to take refuge in Greece. He quite understood that the exchange could not take place immediately, but he asked that a date might be fixed when the exchange should be effected. This exchange would be followed by that of civilian hostages, which was of much less importance. M. Veniselos asked that the sub-commission might be summoned to meet as soon as possible for the purpose of settling the questions which were still in suspense.

M. MONTAGNA remarked that there was no occasion to discuss the figure of 9,000 Turkish civilians detained in Greece, which Ismet Pasha had given, since the exchange was to be carried out (as the report of the sub-commission indicated) in accordance with M 4

[9454]

the lists presented by the two sides. This suggestion had been made by M. Veniselos and adopted by the sub-commission.

Ever since the sub-commission began its work it had been agreed that all the clauses formed a single whole, and so it was impossible, for instance, to send back the civilian hostages if provision had not previously been made for the return of the male population. He hoped that the sub-commission would have no difficulty in finding a definite solution for the points which were still unsettled.

It was decided that the sub-commission should meet as soon as possible for the purpose of settling the matters on which agreement had not yet been reached and framing a draft convention.

(The commission rose at 12:35 P.M.)

ANNEX.

Report addressed to Lord Curzon, President of the First Commission. by M. Montagna, President of the Sub-Commission on the Exchange of Populations.

Mr. President,

Lausanne, January 8, 1923. Ar the plenary meeting of the 1st December, 1922, of the First Commission, presided over by your Excellency, after Dr. Nansen's report had been read and a short discussion had taken place on the situation of the Greek populations in Anatolia, the commission decided to create a special committee whose task would be to study all questions relative to the exchange of populations (Greek and Turkish minorities), with a view to the conclusion of a separate agreement between the two interested parties.

This committee was immediately formed, comprising a delegate and experts of each of the inviting Powers, of Turkey and of Greece. I had the honour of being appointed president.

The next day the committee held its first meeting, which was almost entirely devoted to a clear and full exposition by Dr. Nansen of the results of his investigations in Anatolia and in Greece, and of his suggestions for the speediest possible solution of the different questions involved, the necessity of which arose from the grave and exceptional circumstances of the case.

The committee proceeded forthwith to discuss these questions, which were broadly classified under the following headings :1. Return of civilian hostages.

2. Exchange of prisoners of war.

3. Exchange of populations (Greek and Turkish minorities). It should be noted that from the first it was agreed that(a.) The committee should confine itself in the first instance to reaching an understanding in principle on the various points under discussion.