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.
