TNAG-0714-FCO40-910-Future-of-the-Dependent-Territories-1978 — Page 44

{

O

any of our accepted principles and in fact, if applied, would occasion

Gw

serious difficulty elsewhere in the Empúre and not only in the matter of cessions. le rested his case bluntly on Imperial interests

and justified it further by reference to the safeguards.

In the Commons debate, 24-5 July, the Foreign Under Secretary

admitted that the cession was desired neither by Heligoland nor Great

Britain and rested the Govt's case mainly on the principle laid down

by Salisbury in the Lords "though it was our long practice to treat

:

territories acquired by conquest with great liberality, eg. Malta,

:

French Canada, the retention or otherwise of these must rest on high

#

Imperial grounds. He attempted some defence on the ground that since

hearing of the safeguards and guarantees of their existing privileges

the Heligolanders were satisfied, but at most he could only support

this on second-hand report. [By the date of this debate the islanders

had of course heard fully of the cession and its conditions and it

appears that no notable opposition had occurred

Much of the main ministerial and Opposition speeches were concerned

with the constitutional point, but a high proportion of back-bench ones

were grounded on the objection to non-consultation. Among these, the

sppech of Bryce was notable; he demanded evidence for the Govt's belief

as to the islanders' satisfaction, denied that any steps had been taken

to ascertain their views, and roundly condemned this as the first case,

and therefore an important precedent, of HMG's handing over British

territory and subjects to another Power "as if they were cattle".

1

Many of the critical speeches were from Radicals who especially

attacked the lack of consultation. Ore admitted that it was not a

precedent in regard to non-consent but declared that it was in regard

to non-consultation, and added that the opportunity should be taken to make it a precedent in the opposite sense. The celebrated Radical,

Labouchere, though equally vehement against the lack of consultation

of the inhabitants, greatly undermined the critics' case by quoting

evidence of the pro-German sentiments of the Heligolanders in 1870

when, during the "ranco-Prussian war, they had refused (he said) the

French appeal to them for naval pilots. Another deprecated the trans-

fer "like cattle" of persons "widhing to remain subjects of the British

Crown" [which was of course erroneous since the Agreement allowed them