§ LORD SYDENHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is a fact that the Agreement of 1891) embodying the cession of Heligoland to Germany has definitely lapsed as a. result of the war; and whether, if so, His Majesty's Government can secure the continuity of the rights of the islanders, as well as other conditions affecting British interests, which were provided for in that Agreement.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question is based on the touching appeal that the Heligolanders made to His Majesty's Government, which appeal I am sure your Lordships must all have seen. Their position is very peculiar at the present time; perhaps I might almost say that it is unique. Their fathers and grandfathers and most of themselves lived happily under British rule after 1807, when we occupied the island during the Napoleonic wars, until 1890. In 1890 the blessed word "self-determination" had not been invented, and the islanders were handed over to Germany under an Agreement which guaranteed them certain rights, and also guaranteed certain rights to British subjects.
§ I have not been able to read the debates which occurred at that time, when I was absent from England, but I have always thought that this cession was a mistake, and I cannot believe that it was ever fully considered and approved by the Admiralty. If it had brought us, as may have been hoped at the time, the good will of Germany, I think it might have been justified. I now believe that the island was strongly desired by the Germans in connection with their naval ambitions, which were beginning to dawn at that period. Unfortunately no stipulation was made that the island should not be fortified, and because it was fortified it played an important part during the war, both as an advanced observation post and as a base for submarines. I understand that a proposal was made to attack it, as it was found to be exceedingly inconvenient; but it was most wisely decided at the time not to risk ships on an operation for which all the experience of war shows them to be quite unfitted. It was the ignoring of that experience, and also of the great object lesson obtained at Alexandria in 1882, which led to our failure at Gallipoli. The idea was an excellent one, and it had every chance of success if it had been carried out in the right way.
239§ After the Armistice the whole question of the status of Heligoland must have been discussed at length, and there were several possible courses that might have been followed. The island might have been placed under the care of the League of Nations, or it might have been returned to the Danes, who held it, I believe, for nearly a century, and I understand that most of these people still speak the Friesian dialect. By the Treaty of Versailles, however, it was handed back to Germany or rather it remained a German possession, but under Article 115 of that Treaty the fortifications are now being or have been destroyed. I am not sure whether that includes the sea defences; perhaps the noble Earl (Lord Crawford), when he answers, will be able to tell me. If these defences are removed then a great part of the island will in a short time disappear under the action of erosion. But if that does not happen, I am very much afraid that in twenty-five years we shall find that Heligoland is a strongly fortified position again.
§
The petitioners recall and lay stress on the fact that they were handed over to their German masters without their consent, and then they go on to say—
We would have preferred to remain under the British Flag exercising our liberties under British justice; we would prefer it to-clay. It might be claimed by us that if the Agreement is declared void we revert to Great Britain, but if this no longer possible we appeal to Great Britain to support our just claims to the rights she guaranteed to us at the time of our cession to Germany.
I feel that this helpless little community deserves our warm sympathy, and that we cannot avoid certain direct responsibility for their welfare. I am afraid that the rights which we secured for them in 1890 have disappeared now that the Agreement has become null and void by reason of the war. I ask, therefore, whether it would be possible for His Majesty's Government to much such representations to the German Government as might lead to the continuance of the rights of the Heligolanders and the rights of British subjects in future. I hope that your Lordships will think that my plea is not either unimportant or unreasonable, because it is only in this House at the present time that such a subject as this can be brought forward and discussed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)My Lords, Lord Sydenham briefly states that the rights of the Heligolanders as granted to them under the Treaty of 1890 240 have been diminished, that they desire that their allegiance should revert to Great Britain, and that finally, in his opinion, the refortification of this island is probable in the future. I will very briefly state what has actually occurred.
Lord Sydenham is correct in assuming that the Agreement of 1890 has lapsed. What occurred was this. Under the Treaty of Versailles Article 289 gave each Allied Power the right of reviving bi-lateral Treaties which they might select as being useful, provided that the notice of revival was given within six months before July 10, 1920. The Treaty relating to Heligoland of 1890 dealt not merely with Heligoland but with Africa and other important subjects in relation to the comprehensive Agreement made with Germany in that year. It was not thought necessary to revive that Treaty. Accordingly, the Agreement has lapsed, not through any repudiation on the part of the German Government but by His Majesty's Government itself. But the fact that the Agreement has lapsed does not imply that German sovereignty over the island has disappeared. The status of Heligoland is clearly laid down in Article 115 of the Treaty of Versailles. That Article provides for the destruction of the fortifications of the island.
I do not think that Lord Sydenham would press that the British sovereignty of the island which existed before 1890 should be resumed or revived. He is, however, concerned with the future of the islanders themselves. At one time I think it appeared that the electoral powers of the islanders might be swamped by the immigration of a large number of men who are now living there in order to destroy the fortifications. The actual words about fortifications in Article 115 of the Treaty are as follows—
These fortifications, military establishments and harbours shall not be reconstructed; nor shall any similar works be constructed in future.I have not the complete text, but that is part of it, and it is clearly connoted in those words—"fortifications, military establishments, and harbours shall not be reconstructed"—that it is in contemplation to destroy those which already exist. Lord Sydenham says they will be rebuilt. That is possible; it would be a breach of the Treaty if they are, and it is just as easy to say that any other Article of the Treaty is going to be disregarded by Germany. I have no doubt that the Allies would be 241 quite able to deal with that point if it arose.The other matter on which I need trouble your Lordships is as to the actual political status of the inhabitants of the islands. In August last the Government of the German Republic amended the Constitution of the Republic as a whole in such a manner as to give special advantage to the inhabitants of Heligoland. The Treaty of 1890 secured that native law s and customs then existing should remain undisturbed as far as possible. The Prussian Government, bearing those guarantees in view, I suppose, have substituted a special franchise which in effect must safeguard the inhabitants of Heligoland. Instead of the single year franchise which prevails throughout the German Republic a three years residence franchise has bee a substituted. That appears to me to prevent the interests of the Heligolanders being submerged under any considerable immigration of Germans from the mainland, and it is a concession, I think, which is of some moment.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEMy Lords, I am glad that my noble friend on the cross-benches has raised this question because the position of Heligoland is highly interesting, both from the past history of that island and from its present condition in consequence of the war. There is no need to go back to, or to regret, what occurred in 1890. I very well remember that, having spent a great part of the previous year in South and East Africa, I formed the opinion that so far as the African bargain to which the noble Earl opposite has alluded was concerned it was a pretty fair one in itself, dealing with Damaraland and German East Africa and other matters, but that the cession of Heligoland was thrown in by Her Majesty's Government, as it was at that time, simply in the hope of securing the good will of Germany. There was nothing in the general Treaty which justified in any way the cession of Heligoland. That being so, it seemed to be specially incumbent upon His Majesty's Government to safeguard the interest of the islanders in every way. In this House at the time there were a good many discussions. I remember that Lord Salisbury spoke of the whole proceeding having been confidential, and Lord Granville raised a laugh by asking if they were confidential with the islanders—that is, between the islanders as a whole and the German Government and ourselves.
242 But the cession took place without any desire on the part of the inhabitants of Heligoland to be joined up with Germany. I think that is historically true. Therefore we have felt bound, or should have felt bound, to regard their interests as of special moment to us. Heligoland, as has been stated, was fortified on a large scale; it also became a most fashionable German bathing place. There was a tendency to Germanise the island against the assumed wishes and interests of the original inhabitants, who cannot by any stretch of language be described as German, and therefore I think we still ought to maintain a somewhat special interest in their affairs. I conceive that the noble Earl is quite accurate in saying that an ultimate attempt to re-fortify the island would be a breach of the Treaty and would have to be dealt with accordingly. Whether the substitution of a three years' for a one year's residence for the purpose of turning a man into a Heligolander is sufficient to prevent the absorption of the voting power of the population by Germany I do not feel quite so sure. I am not certain that the original Heligolanders would regard that as a complete safeguard, and I cannot help wishing that a somewhat more direct interest had been taken at the time of the conclusion of the Treaty in the fate of this small population than apparently was taken. It is, of course, a small matter compared with a great many which the Supreme Council at Versailles had to decide. Very likely they thought little of it. But these small matters cannot be regarded as negligible, and I wish something more had been done.
§ LORD SYDENHAMI am not quite certain, from what the noble Earl said, whether or not the sea defences of Heligoland are to be destroyed. He said, I think that the harbours were not to be reconstructed, but I am not sure whether that implies the protection of the land from the action of the sea.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDThat is rather a technical question of the interpretation of the words, but the Treaty provides that the fortifications, military establishments, and harbours shall be destroyed. If these are destroyed any other outworks would be, I imagine, of very little use. It is a technical point on which I dare not offer an opinion. A few million pounds is being spent on blowing them up, and I do 243 not think there is much base on which to erect others if such a course was permissible