TNAG-0714-FCO40-910-Future-of-the-Dependent-Territories-1978 — Page 42

}

!

Another question asked whether exempbion from German conscription

would apply to the children; another as to what the Governor's opinion.

on the cession was (reply; this is confidential); another, had the

Island' Island's executive Council been consulted (reply; 1 am unaware);

another (3 July), repeating the request for consultation of the inhabit-

ants, received the reply "I have every reason to believe that the

Governor was fully informed; as the population is only 2000, it cannot

be difficult for a Governor to be so informed". Certain questions

asked indignantly whether the Govt was going to ask the Commons to

approve the cession in the Bill whilst withholding from them the

evidence for their belief that the Heligolanders were satisfied this

was also evaded; 3 July). On 8 July, just before the 2nd Reading was

taken in the Lords, a further important question was asked in Commons

-whether

guarantee: given to the Heligolanders exempt-

RE

ing them from naval service in British ships, which wo included in

the Articles of Capitulation by which we took control of the island in

1807, had a time limit, and whether stipulations for the continuance of this guarantee had been included in the Agreement with Germany.

Gladstone demanded the laying on the tables of the Articles of Capitul-

ation. The reply stated that the Articles could not be found; that there was no time limit in the guaiontie and that it was met by the exemption from German conscription and the guarantees of respect for existing native law and custom. [This point might have analogies in the in the present case).

The Parliamentary Debates on the Heligoland Bill.

The Anglo-German Agreement was signed on 1 July 1890 and the 2nd Reading of the Will came before the Lords on 10 July and the Commons

on 24-5 July. Much of the debate in both Houses was directed to the

constibutional point whether the cession should have been done under

the prerogative or submitted to Parliament and to the other question of

the adequacy etc of the consideration received for Heligoland (in E. and

couthern Africa etc). But much, probably most, of the other criticism

was founded on the non-consultation point.

In the Lords, on the question of consultation, Salisbury began by

reaffirming his belief that the Heligolanders were not opposed to the transfer, but in any case, he argued, the opinion the inhabitantą