§ THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government for information respecting the Œcumenical Patriarch and Patriarchate of Constantinople; and to move for Papers. His Grace said: My Lords, I have felt it to be right to take the very earliest opportunity open to me on the reassembling of Parliament to call attention to the question of the treatment meted out to the Œcumenical Patriarch and, I would add, to the Œcumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople, and to ask His Majesty's Government for some fuller information than can be gleaned from ordinary sources, if they are in a position to furnish us with it without detriment to the public interests. I have heard or read views which suggest that some people consider that this is purely a matter of internal Turkish administration with which another nation has no right to interfere and that, whether we approve or disapprove of that which the Turkish authorities have done with regard to an ecclesiastical officer who is, or was, in Constantinople, it is not the business of anybody outside to intervene, or, at all events, that it is not the business of anybody to intervene unless he be directly connected with the country to which the Patriarch might be said to owe allegiance in some form.
§ I totally challenge such a statement of the case. The Œcumenical Patriarchate is one of the most venerable institutions in Christendom, with a range of influence and even, indirectly, of authority extending far outside the limits of the nation in whose bounds the Patriarchal seat is placed. For many centuries the position of the man who held that office has been recognised as affecting many other peoples besides those over whom he is directly and immediately presiding in Constantinople itself. Further, the fact that such a position is held by the Œcumenical 181 Patriarch was obviously recognised to the full in almost all the Conferences that have taken place, and in which Turkey was concerned, since the post-war Conferences began. At Lausanne, two years ago, the subject formed a very material part of the discussions which took place, and the admirable work that was there done by the noble Marquess who leads this House was nowhere seen better or more remarkably than in the influence that he was able to exercise and in the words that he was able to speak with respect to the Patriarchate and to the righteousness of its being retained in the position that properly belongs to it.
§ I may quite briefly recall to those of your Lordships to whom they may not be for the moment familiar, what the facts of the case are. Just two years ago when, as I have said, the matter was the subject of conference at Lausanne, it was approached, as we are told, from more sides than one, but historically there was no difference as to the actual position which the Patriarchate had held for many years in Constantinople. The holder of it for the time being had exercised political as well as religious authority—we can use no slighter word—over very many subjects of the Turkish Empire, with the recognition of the Turkish Imperial authorities. That arrangement was recognised as a proper and a necessary one, and sanction was given to it in a formal way on the appointment of a new Patriarch, recognition being given in many ways to his political as well as religious status. When the discussion took place at Lausanne the Turkish representatives made it clear—the noble Marquees will correct me if I state anything inaccurately—that it had been the Turkish intention to remove the Patriarch and the Patriarchate from Constantinople, and to bring to an end the status which he had enjoyed there for so many years both in religious and political matters.
§ The discussions were prolonged, and the rather massive Blue-book which recounts that which took place at Lausanne tells in one page after another how this subject came to the front from different points of view. Finally, the proposition that had been put, forward on behalf of Turkey as to what they desired to do was withdrawn by the Turkish representative with a distinct statement that he did so because of that which had gone before. That which had happened before was this. The Greek 182 and Allied representatives in the Conference had stated that in the event of the Patriarch and the Patriarchate remaining in Constantinople the holder of that office would confine himself purely to religious duties, religious responsibility and influence, and would deliberately abstain from intervention in political matters of any kind. That statement was considered and weighed, and at first, if I am not mistaken, the Turkish authorities said that it would make no difference, and that they intended to persevere in that which they had said they would do. At a later stage in the proceedings, however, this attitude was modified.
§
In order to be quite accurate I will quote the words of the Turkish representative from the Minutes of the Conference as contained in the Blue-book. In the Blue-book appear these words:—
As regards the question of the Patriarchate, Ismet Pasha, took note before the Commission of the solemn declarations and assurances which had been delivered by the Allied and Creek delegations, whereby the Patriarch was no longer to take any part whatever in affairs of a political or administrative character, and was to confine himself within the limits of purely religious matters … With a view"—
this is the important phrase—
to giving a supreme proof of the conciliatory disposition of the Delegation over which be presided, Ismet Pasha withdrew the proposal under the conditions just stated ay him, and in reliance on the assurances of which he had already taken note.
That appears to the ordinary reader like a perfectly formal declaration—although it was not incorporated in the actual Treaty—on the part of the Turkish Delegation, that they withdrew the proposal which had been made for the termination of the Patriarchate in Constantinople, and that was recognised at once.
§
During the whole of the proceedings a great amount of interest was aroused throughout the East, and not in the East alone, in what took place. I was myself the recipient of almost numberless communications and telegrams from all branches of the Eastern Churches, protesting against any harm being done or any indignity offered to the venerable occupant of the Patriarchate. I despatched to the holder of the office a
183
telegram which has been much commented upon since, but to which I adhere:—
I have throughout continued to press upon the Conference at Lausanne our earnest hope and desire that no breach should take place in the maintenance of the historic (Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople. The continuity of the Patriarchate in Constantinople is profoundly important to the whole Christian Church.
To that telegram I entirely adhere.
§ That was the position in which matters stood at the termination of the Conference at Lausanne. The then Patriarch was the Archbishop Meletios, who was accused, rightly or wrongly, of being somewhat political in many of his interests and activities. The criticisms which were made turned partly upon the man and partly upon his office. A little later Archbishop Meletios resigned his office as Patriarch, left Constantinople, and went to reside at Mount Athos, where he has been ever since. So far as I can judge, he behaved in the matter with great public spirit in laying down his office in the belief that his action would be conducive to the interests not merely of peace but of the Patriarchate itself, if it were placed in other hands. Accordingly, about Christmas, 1923, a little more than a year ago, his successor, Gregory, was appointed to hold the office. There is no doubt about the canonical nature of the office, he being duly appointed after election. He retained the office, innocently and apparently without much controversy, until he died in November last. Then another election took place and the present holder, Constantine, was elected, and he still holds the office to which he was elected two months ago. There is no accusation, that I have heard of, made to the effect that he is a political agent, or that he has endeavoured in the least to depart from the understanding that the Patriarchate was going to be held only by one who would confine himself to the duties which appertain to his office; and I am not aware of any accusation whatever having been brought against him personally.
§ The Turks, however, decided that it was desirable that he should leave Constantinople. I presume they thought that he would lay down, or else be deprived of, his office. Accordingly, he has been expelled from Constantinople. The term 184 "exchange" is used, because in the rather complicated arrangements brought about in the discussions at Lausanne the expression "exchange" of members of different nationalities was used as a somewhat euphemistic term for banishment. Exchange virtually means banishment, and Constantine, in a manner of marked indignity, was put on board a vessel and sent away from Constantinople. He is now on Greek territory. Telegrams have poured, and continue to pour, in upon me, and doubtless to a much greater extent they have poured into the Foreign Office, from all kinds of religious bodies in the East, and even in the West, because America is sending telegrams, too. In America there are a great many adherents of the Greek Church, and also numbers of people who take an interest in its life and history. That interest is being shown in indignant protest against the treatment of this venerable officer and his office, and in a desire that, if possible, something should be done to prevent, or recall, or reverse the outrage which has been committed.
§ It is not for me to go into the technical question of the possibility of "exchange." That is the political side of the question, into which, although necessarily more or less familiar with the facts, I do not feel competent to go, or into which it would not be helpful for me to enter. I would much rather leave the noble Marquess to explain that, because I believe it to belong to the department of Foreign Office administration. I want, however, to say this: that while I received those telegrams and replied to them guardedly and simply, I have never concealed the view which I hold most strongly, that although the Patriarch has been expelled from the actual place where he and his predecessors have held their seat for so many years, in Constantinople, he does not in the least cease to be Patriarch, or cease to exercise the rights belonging to his office. There have been periods, one of considerable length, during which, owing to the disturbed condition of Constantinople and the regions around, the Patriarch has resided away from Constantinople, and there is no reason why, technically, such a fact should in any way interfere with the continuance of the office of Patriarch.
§ I very earnestly trust there will be no failure on the part of the Patriarch to hold firmly to the position of having been 185 canonically elected Patriarch of the Church and placed in that position by the votes of those entitled to give votes, upon whose support he can rely, whether he resides in Constantinople or in banishment elsewhere. The Patriarchate lives though the Patriarch himself has been forced, for the time being, to leave Constantinople, which is the natural home of the office. We hear rumours—I only hear them in a roundabout way, and I have no direct authority whatever on the subject—of some attempts being in contemplation to, bring about the election of a new Patriarch favourable to the Turks and under Turkish direction and dominance, by the importation for the purpose, if they can be found, of some Bishops from Russia or elsewhere, who might be ready possibly to elect some one to hold the office. Whether it would be canonical or not I do not for the moment attempt to say. I do not attach any particular credit to these rumours, I have not seen them in any authentic form, but I imagine it is universally felt that if a farce of that kind—for no other word can be used to describe it were perpetrated, and a sham Patriarch were put into office, while the Patriarchate is still held by one who is properly and canonically entitled to it, the action would be disregarded, and his religious authority in the East could not properly be exercised.
§ I have given the facts without any attempt to descant upon them as regards the degree and character of the wrong done, and I have given them as well as I know how from the information that is in your Lordships' possession, and in my possession perhaps in more detail from some of the messages and letters that have reached me. My desire is to know whether His Majesty's Government can throw any further light on a rather tangled question, and can offer some prospect to those of us who are in close touch with the Eastern Church, who marvel at the wonderful record of its past and believe in its greater possibilities in the future, that the venerable office will continue to be respected in the East, and may hold such a position as shall assure the continuance of the respect due to it in the East, both in the Church and among the many peoples who pay their allegiance to the Patriarchal Throne at Constantinople. I beg to ask if there are any Papers on the subject, and, in 186 case there should be any, to move that His Majesty's Government should produce them.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON)My Lords, no member of your Lordships' House has a greater right, and indeed I may say no member has so great a right, to raise this question as the most rev. Primate who has just addressed us, not merely because of his great position as the head of the Anglican Church, But because, as he told us, this is a question in which he has taken a prominent and vital interest for many years. He mentioned to us the flood of correspondence, telegraphic and other, with which he has been assailed on the matter, and I can recall very well rather more than two years ago, when I was at Lausanne, that I was honoured on more than one occasion by communications from the most rev. Primate upon the question.
He has made, if I may be allowed to say so, a perfectly fair and dispassionate statement of the case. The Œcumenical Patriarchate is a most remarkable and peculiar institution. There is nothing like it in the world. It might almost be described as a strarge anomaly surviving from an almost forgotten past. On the one hand, as the Archbishop pointed out, it is one of the most venerable institutions in the Eastern world. The Œcumenical Patriarch is the Primate of the Metropolitans of the Greek Orthodox Church, and he is the head to whom all the Greek communities look, and whose authority they recognise in Constantinople, in Asia Minor, and in the Provinces which in modern times Greece has wrested from the Turks. On the other hand, this individual, with this strange and almost unique authority, is a Turkish official. He must be an Ottoman subject. He can only be elected from a list that is approved by the Turkish Government, and when he has been elected by the body called the Holy Synod at Constantinople he cannot exercise his functions until he has received the berat, or exequatur, from the Turkish Government.
This state of affairs, which could exist nowhere except in the East, and which, of course, has historical foundations deeply embedded in the story of the past. 187 has lasted, as the Archbishop has told us, for five centuries, ever since the Turks acquired Constantinople. And a notable thing about it is this, that the political and civil authority and prerogatives which this ecclesiastical official has enjoyed were spontaneously and deliberately given by the Turks themselves, because they felt that in the then condition of affairs it would add very much to the efficacy of their own administrative machinery if the head of the Greek Orthodox Church was to be one who might be described as among their own officials.
That is, briefly speaking, the history and the character of this remarkable institution. Now we come to its history in more recent times. The most rev. Primate has sketched, in general and quite correct outline, what happened at Lausanne just a little more than two years ago. I found that this question of the Patriarchate was going to loom very large in the discussions. The Turks said, and, as the Archbishop has hinted, not altogether without reason, that the then incumbent of the office, the Patriarch Meletios, had engaged in political activities, that he had been the centre and focus of a good deal of political intrigue, that his election was illegal, as I believe technically it was, and that such a state of affairs could not possibly be allowed to continue. They were anxious, therefore, both to get rid of the Patriarch Meletios and also to get rid of the institution. That was the position of affairs with which I was confronted at Lausanne, and when they realised the strenuous opposition that would be likely to be offered to such a proposal they tried to make the retention of the Patriarchate at Constantinople a condition of the Greeks at Constantinople—as far as I remember, some 200,000 strong—being allowed to remain there at all.
The Archbishop was right, I think, in deprecating the policy of exchange, amounting, as he just now said, sometimes to a sentence of expulsion, which was the pivot of the Turkish policy on that occasion. I never ceased to point out to them that I thought this policy would be a disastrous one in their own interests, but it was one in regard to which they were in a position to enforce their views, and their views were agreed to by M. Venizelos as representing the Greek nation. When we came to the 188 crucial point I assumed the responsibility, with the consent of my colleagues there representing the other Allied Powers, of making the proposal to which the Archbishop referred—namely, that the civil and administrative functions of the Patriarch should cease to exist, in case they might be, as it was alleged they had been, abused, but that his spiritual and ecclesiastical powers should remain. That proposal was ultimately accepted by Ismet Pasha in the terms which the Archbishop read just now. It was also accepted by M. Venizelos speaking on behalf of the Greek Government, and he at the same time agreed to the removal of the Patriarch Meletios from Constantinople.
The most rev. Primate sketched what has happened since then. Meletios, he told us, resigned and was then succeeded by Gregory, who held the post for a short time and died in December last. Thereupon the present Patriarch, Mgr. Constantine, was elected. Now here I must fill in one or two slight gaps in the Lord Archbishop's narrative. When it was proposed to elect Constantine the Turkish Government warned the Synod who were the electoral body that Constantine was not, in their view, eligible, because under the Exchange of Populations Convention, which we had concluded at Lausanne in January, 1923, he was an exchangeable Greek. I must tell the House what that means. The Convention to which I am referring laid down that in carrying out this policy of exchange which I have mentioned all Ottoman Greeks had to leave Turkey and be exchanged for Moslems in Greece, except those who had been established in Constantinople before the year 1918. Under this clause Mgr. Constantine was not eligible. Nevertheless, the Synod proceeded to elect him. The question was then referred to the Mixed Commission appointed to deal with such matters. The Mixed Commission said that Constantine was technically exchangeable, but added that it was outside their powers to say whether this fact could be, or ought to be, overridden by the pledge given by Ismet Pasha at Lausanne. Thereupon the Turks expelled the Patriarch.
Your Lordships may imagine that this violent act aroused the very greatest agitation in Greece, not merely because of the manner in which it was carried out, but also because the Greek Government 189 and the Greek nation regarded this as the first stage, or at any rate as a further stage, in a deliberate attempt to disparage, to decry, and ultimately, perhaps, to abolish the Patriarchate itself. Their view was that it was an absolute violation of the spirit of the undertaking, the pledge, given by Ismet Pasha at Lausanne. Your Lordships can see that the question strictly at issue is whether Ismet Pasha's pledge to retain the Patriarchate at Constantinople covered the Patriarch himself and the resident Metropolitans who constitute the Synod, and whether, therefore, they are outside the provisions of the Convention to which I have referred for the exchange of populations. That is the question now at issue.
The most rev. Primate asked me to complete the later stages of what I think he called the political history of the case. It is as follows. The Greek Government, who, it seems to me have behaved with caution, circumspection and prudence throughout, were desirous that this question of interpretation should be referred to the Hague Tribunal. This request was refused by the Turkish Government on the ground that the question of the Patriarchate was, in the main, a domestic question in which outside interference was unreasonable, and that a reference to arbitration by the Hague Tribunal did not arise because the question of the Patriarchate, although the subject of discussion and agreement at Lausanne, was not actually embodied in the Treaty itself. But they went on to say that they had no desire or intention to abolish the Patriarchate, or to evade the obligation which Ismet Pasha had entered into on their behalf on that occasion. They added that the Greeks had only to elect a non-exchangeable Greek for the matter to be settled. The Greek Government, in those circumstances, are appealing—they have, I believe, already appealed—to the League of Nations in the matter.
The most rev. Primate has said with great truth that this is a tangled question. It is really a question of the most extreme delicacy and difficulty. The House can see that it is a question in which considerations of long tradition, of religious conviction, of political susceptibilities, of national prestige are involved; and the way out of such an issue is invariably one that it is extremely difficult to find. It is the opinion of His 190 Majesty's Government, and I am sure it will be the opinion of everyone here, that this is emphatically a question that ought to be settled by discussion and by agreement between the two parties, and that it would not only be deplorable but it would be a great international scandal if it were allowed to develop into a situation in which the term war was hinted at, or even implied. I have given your Lordships the narrative of events as they have proceeded up to the present time, and the House may confidently rely upon His Majesty's Government to use all the influence in their power—and they are in absolute accord with their various Allies on the matter—in the direction of composing the passions that have, not unnaturally, been aroused and securing a solution that shall be one of conciliation and peace.
§ VISCOUNT HALDANEMy Lords, I have listened attentively to what the noble Marquess has said. I listened no less attentively to what fell from the most rev. Primate. I do not wonder that the most rev. Primate has called the attention of the House to this case. It is on the face of it, very deplorable that questions of this kind should come into such an atmosphere and that such things should happen as have happened. But I waited to see how the most rev. Primate could get away from this. After all, on his own showing, this is very like an exercise on the part of the Turks of their rights of sovereignty. Turn and twist it as you please, you cannot get it wholly out of that region in which the sovereign power must be treated as supreme. No doubt it is true that there were references to Lausanne and the League of Nations, and that things were discussed. But it is not the practice of the League of Nations to interfere in internal matters which are under the disposition of the Government concerned.
It is quite true that the Christian community has had assurances that an old historical institution will be maintained, but when the Turks come and say that internal considerations have made it impossible to maintain that institution in the form in which it was they have said something which makes it necessary for us from outside to proceed very cautiously. The noble Marquess evidently felt that he was not able to do anything other than 191 to tell your Lordships that the matter should have the closest consideration of the Government, and that they would do what they could. Possibly they can do something by making representations of some kind. The noble Marquess did not say that they were going to make representations. I dare say he felt the ground to be very delicate ground to tread on, but there will certainly be great dissatisfaction of two kinds if we take either of two courses. If we say this is a matter so much for the Turkish people that we cannot interfere, then questions of tradition come in, questions of the keenest religious sentiment, and there will be dissatisfaction if nothing is done. On the other hand, if we say, as we may have to say, that this is a matter within the sovereignty of the Turkish people, then another section of the public who watch such interferences very jealously, and who look back into history that is comparatively recent for the evil consequences of rash intrusions of this kind, will bid us hold our hands.
For myself, I can only say that I hope that the noble Marquess will have effect given to his undertaking to watch this question closely, and to move in it as far as he can move in it. Unless he does he will not have satisfied those for whom the most rev. Primate speaks. On the other hand, he has to exercise equal care not to do the kind of thing that we did only about seventy years ago when interference in religious matters in the Near East brought us close to the verge of war. These topics are highly explosive, and they require the greatest care in handling. The more of other countries that the Government can get to act with them in making any representation they may feel themselves at liberty to make in this matter the better, I think, for everybody concerned.
LORD RAGLANMy Lords, I rise to ask a question, and it is this. In the event of its proving impossible for the Patriarch to remain at Constantinople will the Government consider the possibility of inviting the Patriarch to take up his residence at Jerusalem?
THE MARQUESS CURZOX OF KEDLES-TOXMy Lords, in the House of Commons, when a question of that sort is put, the answer is invariably given that it is not the duty of the Government Bench to reply to hypothetical questions. I think I might reply to my noble friend in that sense, and that it would be an adequate reply. I might go further and say that any invitation such as he speaks of, whatever its prudence or desirability is one that would not emanate from His Majesty's Government. It could only come from other sources.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.