DERECHO A UN PROCESO SIN DILACIONES INDEBIDAS Y CONDUCTA PROCESAL DEL ACUSADO

due to meet in London. He was informed by the Holy See’s Secretary of State that attempts to procure the amendment or entire suppression of draft article 14 had occurred from the French and Italian sides. Gasparri had then sent the Apostolic Nuncio in Paris, Monsignor Cerretti, to London with instructions to “act for the best” in relation to the discussions taking place there. The Cardinal acknowledged that the Vatican had accepted the revised text; “but there were features in the new suggestion which had their value for the Holy See [especially] as regards the idea that the Holy See should be able to appoint its own representative for the defence of its position, instead of being obliged to have recourse to the interested help of others”. Gasparri felt that an international regime outside of the scope of the Mandate itself might be a preferable course for the Holy See.93 He also advised Count de Salis that the Pope would “take no notice” of recent communications from the Hejaz and Egypt rejecting the concept of the Jewish national home and calling for complete independence for Palestine under a national government.94 There appears at least the inference in this latter remark from Cardinal Gasparri that Great Britain should appreciate the Holy See’s restraint when it considered the Holy See’s approach regarding the Holy Places and the draft Palestine Mandate

At the meeting of the Council of the League in London on 24 July 1922, held in public in the presence of “Archbishop Cerretti , the Archbishop of Canterbury, members of the Arab delegation, and Mrs Chaim Weizmann”,95 the text of the draft Palestine mandate was agreed to, subject to the replacement of the draft article 14 with a new and shorter form. This stated that:

A special Commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. The method of nomination, the composition and the functions of

93

G.1.1.33. FO 371/7786, ibid, Despatch No. 107 from Count de Salis to the Earl of Balfour of 22 July 1922.

94_{G.1.1.33. FO 371/7786, ibid, Despatch No. 107 of 22 July 1922 from de Salis to Balfour. The}

intensity of French opposition to a British mandate in Palestine,and the deep desire to reestablish the French protectorate is shown in the work of the Comite Dupleix, for which see C.27.Folios 608-611,

La Question de Palestine devant le Conseil de la Societe des Nations, July 1922.

95

this Commission shall be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations for its approval, and the Commission shall not be appointed or enter upon its functions without the approval of the Council.96

Yet within those very days when the Palestine Mandate was to be approved by the League of Nations on 24 July 1922 France did procure the dropping of the draft replacement Article 14 and its replacement by a new and much shorter form of words. The Foreign Office instructed Count de Salis on 25 July that the: “Terms of Palestine mandate were definitely approved by Council of the League of Nations on July 24th, but owing to French attitude it was necessary to substitute shorter draft of article 14 for our text, leaving method of nomination, composition and functions of Commission for further consideration and approval by the Council. Please assure Cardinal Gasparri that adoption of this procedure implies no change in our general policy as regards the Commission”.97

Cerretti then wrote to Gasparri, setting out a detailed briefing of the outcome of the negotiations in London. He noted that Lord Balfour had focussed his closing remarks on the Palestine Mandate, repeating the declaration regarding the “Jewish Home” and the Holy Places, that all existing rights would be recognized and protected. Cerretti had assured Lord Balfour that the Holy See did not wish to create difficulties and desired only to cooperate with England “in order to reach an equable solution of the question and for a complete pacification of the people of Palestine, naturally based on respect and the observation of the rights of all”. Monsignor Cerretti had, on the spur of the moment, introduced into his discussion with Lord Balfour the concept of the Holy Places as being “international” in character. Cerretti had insisted to Lord Balfour that all the Catholic nations, including Spain and Belgium, must have representation on the proposed Commission as well as the Holy See itself. He

96

G.1.1.31. FO 371/7779 Registry No. E 7731/78/65 Letter of 3 August 1922 from Mr Charles Tufton,

Cabinet Office, to Sir Cecil Hurst, Foreign Office, enclosing text of the mandate for Palestine as received from Geneva that day with article 14 in that form; and E 8954/78/65 Printed text C.529 M.314 1922 VI, League of Nations Mandate for Palestine with text of article 14 in this form; F.2.ff.3-9,

Mandate for Palestine, at f.8. for text of Article 14. For the full text of the Mandate for Palestine see also Luke and Keith-Roach, ibid, Appendix 1, 494-504.

97_{G.1.1.33. FO 371/7786, ibid, Cypher telegram No. 15 of 25 July 1922 from Foreign Office to Count}

concluded that the Holy See should urgently send a Memorandum on its views as to the Holy Places Commission and the operation of article 14 of the Palestine Mandate.98

Whilst Cardinal Gasparri was critical of the various attempts to attribute disquiet to the Holy See about the negotiations over the Palestine Mandate, not least by France and other so-called Catholic nations,99 he went on to articulate a clear position for the Holy See in relation to the Holy Places of Palestine. His Memorandum on the Holy Places Commission set out the Holy See’s position: that as to those nations interested in the Sanctuaries, these were France, Italy, Spain and Belgium; that it was incontestible that the Holy See must have the right to participate through its own representative as to the Catholic interest throughout the world; the non-Catholic interest could be represented by the United States of America and Greece; that as to composition of the proposed Commission it would be best to nominate as members of the Commission the consuls of those various nations residing in Jerusalem; that the Commission must be permanent; that the Commission should judge and decide as to all controversies regarding the Sanctuaries; that the Mandatory Power would be responsible for the implementation of decisions of the Commission; and that all Catholic Holy Places belonged to the Catholic Church, and not just to a particular religious community which might be administering that particular Holy Place.100

4.7. THE ONGOING STRUGGLE OVER THE HOLY PLACES COMMISSION

Although for Britain the adoption of the Mandate in final form was an undoubted relief and brought certainty to its administration of Palestine, in relation to the question of the Holy Places Commission the same could not be said. Squabbling over its functions and composition now reached a crescendo, beginning with

98