1140 ADMINISTRATION AND LEGISLATION [pArT Vv 
As for the New Hebrides in particular, I may point out that 
during the last twenty years at least it has been clearly 
impossible to discuss the future of the Group, except on the 
basis of an admitted equality of interests between this 
country and France ; and I may perhaps add that, according 
to the testimony of the High Commissioner for the Western 
Pacific, of the British Resident in the Group, and of Naval 
officers who have served there, one of the main reasons why 
British settlement and British influence in the Islands are not 
now as large as they might have been, is to be found in the 
operation of the Australian Customs tariff framed in 1901-2. 
The views of the Secretary of State did not obtain the full 
approval of the Governments of the Dominions, and the 
question was raised again in 1907, when the Colonial Premiers 
attended the Imperial Conference! It was found possible 
to obtain the assistance of the New Zealand Government in 
1907 in drafting supplemental arrangements on matters of 
detail with the French Government.? 
In the case of North America prior to 1906, constant com- 
plaints were made of British diplomacy, complaints echoed 
even by the Prime Minister. It was held, though recent 
investigation has shown without adequate ground, that the 
Imperial Government had sacrificed Canadian interests both 
in 1842 as regards the main boundary, and in 1846 as regards 
the boundary of British Columbia. As a matter of fact, the 
former treaty represented a very satisfactory compromise, 
for the negotiators of the Treaty of 1783 had hopelessly given 
away the British case, and nothing was left but to make the 
best, and a fairly satisfactory best, of a bad bargain.3 
The settlement of the Columbian boundary was governed 
* Parl. Pap., Cd. 5323, pp. 548-63. * See Parl. Pap., Cd. 3876, p. 23. 
* See House of Commons Debates, 1907-8, pp. 3954 seq.; 1909-10, pp. 
4762 seq.; United Empire, ii. 683 seq.; Macphail, Essays in Politics, 
pp. 247 seq. These papers form a necessary counterpoise to Hodgins’s 
works, which are repeated by writers like Jebb without critical examina. 
tion. Ewart, Kingdom of Canada and The Kingdom Papers (cf. Canadian 
Annual Review, 1909, pp. 179, 180), is biased by his enthusiasm for 
Canadian independence. See a sensible view in Henderson's American 
Diplomatic Questions. It is essential to remember that there are two 
sides to every dispute, and that in every case the United States have had 
strong arguments, even if to us they seem less cogent than our own.