Responsible government in the Dominions: Responsible government in the Dominions

Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Bibliographic data

Multivolume work

Identifikator:: 1896933912

Document type:: Multivolume work

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Press

Year of publication:: 1912-

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Volume

Identifikator:: 1896935311

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-237672

Document type:: Volume

Author:: Keith, Arthur Berriedale http://d-nb.info/gnd/119086794

Title:: Responsible government in the Dominions

Volume count:: Vol. 3

Place of publication:: Oxford

Publisher:: Clarendon Pr.

Year of publication:: 1912

Scope:: XII Seiten, Seiten 1102-1670

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Multivolume work

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Part V. Imperial control over Dominion administration and legislation

Collection:: Economics Books

CHAP. V] TREATY RELATIONS 1141 by the actual facts and perhaps in some measure by the ill- advised action of the Hudson’s Bav Company’s representa- tive in the west, but it was clearly not a surrender of Canadian interests on Imperial grounds. The Reciprocity Treaty of 1854, negotiated by Lord Elgin, was unquestionably of the greatest advantage to Canada, and a striking proof of the anxiety of the Imperial Govern- ment in Canadian interests, and the regret with which its termination by the United States was greeted in Canada is conclusive proof of its value. On the other hand, great feeling was caused by the con- clusion of the Treaty of Washington in 1871. Sir John Macdonald was one of the plenipotentiaries, and he evidently felt that the British negotiators were too much inclined to sacrifice Canadian for Imperial interests! On the other hand must be set the fact that Great Britain was prepared to make to the United States the enormous sacrifice involved in the agreement to arbitrate the Alabama claims on a basis which rendered a heavy liability inevitable. Moreover, the United States were at the height of their military power, having vast forces trained in the Civil War, Canada was practically defenceless, and the terms which were obtained for Canada cannot, on a calm review, be considered to have been unsatisfactory. The Behring Sea Arbitration,” in which Canada was successful in a large measure, satisfied the Canadian people, but this satisfaction was dispelled by the award in the Alaska boundary case? It is easy now to regret that an arbitration should ever have been accepted which confronted three national arbitrators with other three national arbitrators, and to deplore the quixotic action of Canada in maintaining the impartial character of thesc arbitrators when three far from impartial arbitrators had * Pope, Sir John Macdonald, ii. 104 seq. Cf. Morley, Life of Gladstone. ii. 401, n. ; Ewart, The Kingdom Papers, pp. 65-7. ® See Parl. Pap., C. 6918-22, 6949-51, 7107, 7161 (1893-4) ; C. 7836. ® Bee Parl. Pap., Cd. 1400, 1472 (1903); 1877, 1878 (1904); 3159; Ewart, Kingdom of Canada, pp. 299 seq.; Sir W. Laurier in Canada House of Commons Debates, 1903, p. 14815; cf. 1892, pp. 1143, 1144; 1909-10, P 4705; Canadian Annual Review, 1903, pp. 346 seq.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Responsible government in the Dominions (Vol. 3)

Multivolume work

Volume

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Volume

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation