GLADSTONE AND HELIGOLAND

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2669, 15 January 1916, Page 6

GLADSTONE AND HELIGOLAND

(To the Editor.) - ®IJi> a £° a letter appeared in ii£E Dominion which attempted to cast on Mr. Gladstone the responsibility for the cession of Heligoland to Germany. Tho argument was that, though tho actual cession was made by the Marquis of Salisbury, the stops taken by his predecessor in office were such that tho Marquis's hands were tied. It would bt? interesting, to know your correspondent's authority ' for this statement. I have been curious enough to look up the report of tho debate on this Bill in the House of Lords, as published in the London "Times" of July 11, 1890, and some extracts from it may ho of interest to your readers. In 'introducing tho second reading of the Bill, the Marquis is reported to have spoken as follows:—"The value of the island for any strategical purposes was now very small. Lying, moreover, within a few hours of tlio great arsenals of if the island remained in our possession it could easily be taken by that Power in war before the arrival of a relieving force, thus exposing us to considerable humiliation. On the other hand, if we were at war with any other Power, the island could only bo defended by the locking up tliero of a, force which could ill bo spared amid tho pressing demands of our extended arid increasing Empire. On these grounds we have como to tho conclusion that this island, unfortified and undefended, is jjot in an advantageous position, but that it is 'one of which for a proper consideration it would bo profitable for tho Empire to be divested." Later on tho Marquis says: "Tlie island is worthless from a strategic point of view."

The Bill to cede tlie island was criticised by tho Earl of Rosebery and Earl Granville, the two leading Liberal peers nntl_ Foreign Ministers in Gladstonian Cabinets. Tlie Earl of Rosebery said "that he did not wish 'to carp "at an agreement which, whoever obtained most advantage from it, would,, he trusted, conduce largely to good relations between the two great countries interested," and then adds tlie following significant sentence"But perhaps it may'be permitted me to reflect without acrimony on what would have been said if Mr. Gladstone's Government had submitted an agreement of this description to the House." How does this remark squaro with your correspondent's statement that Mr. Gladstone. had practically committed the country to tlie surrender? The fact is that there is no' reference in any of tho speeches to anything dono by Mr. Gladstone tying the hands of-tho Government. Tho opposition to the Bill mainly centred on the fact that the consent of • the inhabitants to tlio cession had not been obtained,'and that tho equivalents got in Africa wcro not of mucli value. In a leader in tho same issue, the "Times" gives its approval to the transaction, and is also isilent as to any previous action on Mr. Gladstone's part. Tlie language used by the Marquis of Salisbury may seem strange to ns now, but the fact is that in 1890 no one either in England or in Germany had yet thought of tho military value of Heligoland. Even Bismarck was blind to it. Tlie following is an extract on the point - from Busch's "Memoirs of the Chancellor" (Vol. 111, p. 353): —"Zanzibar ought not to have been left to the English. To regard Heligoland as an equivalent shows moro imagination than sound calculation. In the event of war it would be better for ns that it: should bo in the hands of a neutral Power. It is difficult and expensive to fortify"—a point' which he then explained in detail. In all the English histories which I have consulted the cession of Heligoland is ascribed solely to the Marquis of Salisbury, and his biographers regard the arrangements with Germany relative to East Africa, for which Heligoland was the pricc, as one of his great achievements. On the other hand, there is! no reference to Heligoland at all in Morley's monumental ' Life of Gladstone." I think that your _ correspondent ought to produco this evidence, for tho account ho has given of tho transaction, for which I do not think anyone can bo blamed. No one can forsce the distant future, and tho Marquis of Salisbury probably did a wise thing in the circumstances. But now that things have turned out otherwise, your correspondent has no right to shift the onus from the proper shoulders, and blacken a great man's reputation by a charge which I consider I have shown to be as ]»intless as it is groundless. I say pointless, for it must be remembered that Heligoland was not forti/fied when we had it. and then England could not have fortified the island, as that would have been regarded as a menace to Germany, and would have led to endless irritation and friction. It is true that if the island had not been ceded, Germany could not have turned it into the centre of naval and submarine activity that it is at present, and so far wo should have gained. But the Kaiser had not discovered in 1890 that the future of Germany lay on the water, and Heligoland was a crumbling little island inhabited by a few fishermen and haunted by summer visitors from Hamburgh. Though politics ought to be avoided at present, I think I may fairly carry tlio ivar into the enemies' conn try. and add that tlio less said about tlio European foreign policy of Disraeli. Salisbury, and Co. the better for their admirers. But for their boasted "Peace with Honour," the Turk would have been bundled, "bag and baggage," out, of Europe long ago—and New Zealand would not have lost so manv bravo, hods on flia shore of Gallipoli.—'l am, etc., HISTQMCUS.