History of the Late War between Great Britain and the United States of America

History of the Late War between Great Britain and the United States of America by David Thompson, late of the Royal Scots, Niagara U.C. , 1832. There is an inscription in the front of the book which says “[illegible] Nelles, Grimsby and it is signed by Joseph Williams [?]” The book is stained from dampness, but this does not affect the text, 1832.

The role of a minor party : a comparative study of the British Liberal Party and the Australian Country Party since 1918

and the Australian Country Party since 1918. 2. The thesis examines the proposition that the role of a minor party is determined, not by its total strength expressed as a percentage of the national vote, but by how its strength is concentrated. Australia and Britain were chosen for the comparison because of the many similarities in political culture and in the extent of class voting. Each country has a party - the Country Party in Australia and the Liberal Party in Britain - which has had a distinct impact on the political scene in their respective countries. In the period from 1918 to the present day neither party, at the national level, has ever held the largest number of seats in parliament let alone a majority of seats, and it is in this sense that they are herein defined as minor parties. In the thesis the constitutional background of and differences between Australia and Britain are reviewed, followed by a brief historical picture of each of the two parties being studied. The sources of supporc of the two parties are analysed and it is here that real differences emerge. The Country Party in Australia is a deliberately sectional party with a narrow rural base, whereas the British Liberal Party is more broadly based than either the Labour or Conservative Parties in Britain. 3. Party leadership and organisation are then discussed. Both parties have had outstanding leaders, Earle Page and McEwen for the Country Party; Asquith, Lloyd George and Grimond for the Liberal Party. Both parties have had relatively fewer leaders than their major party opponents. However, whereas the Country Party has been free of serious splits the Liberal Party was shattered on the leadership struggles of Asquith and Lloyd George. Both parties have been identified with decentralisation of state power, the Country Party through its support, albeit sometimes lukewarm of the New States Movement; the Liberal Party through its espousal of a federal system for Britain with separate Welsh, Scottish and regional assemblies. Unfortunately for the British Liberal Party the beneficiaries of their policies in this area have been relatively new nationalist parties in both Wales arid Scotland. The major part of the thesis is devoted to a study of how the electoral systems in the two countries have, in practice, worked to the advantage or disadvantage of the Country Party and the British Liberal Party. The Country Party has been as consistently over-represented in the House of Representatives as the Liberal Party has been under-represented in the British House of Commons. With the even distribution of its support the introduction of the single transferable vote, in itself, would bring little benefit to the British Liberal Party in terms of seats. Multimember urban constituencies combined with some type of list system are the only way the Liberals are likely to obtain House of Commons seats in proportion to their votes. 4. Finally, the relations of the two minor parties with their respective major parties are considered. In the conclusion the future of the two parties is reviewed. In general terms it appears that the Country Party is faced with a slow decline. Although the British Liberal Party made a major breakthrough, in terms of votes, in the February 1974 election, they were unable to maintain this momentum in the October election, even though they lost very little ground. In the long term they must make an inroad into Labour held seats if they are to progress further.

The Falkland Islands War of 1982: a legal, diplomatic and strategic evaluation

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

The law of the sea: the United States, Canada and the deep seabed

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

Canada seventy years ago : or, Prince Edward's visit to Niagara /

Verse.

A compressed view of the points to be discussed, in treating with the United States of America : with an appendix /

Appendix: On the conduct of the government of United States towards the Indian tribes: p.[129]-139.

Correspondence between the American and British Plentipotentiaries relative to the commercial convention concluded on the 3rd of July, 1815.--

January 16, 1816.

Important state papers : declaration of war, Washington, June 18, 4 o'clock, P.M.

Message to the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States / James Madison -- Report : the Committee on Foreign relations, to whom was referred the message of the President of the United States of the 1st of June, 1812 -- An Act, declaring war between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories -- Address of the Senate to the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Letter from the Secretary of State to Mr. Monroe, on the subject of the attack on the Chesapeake : the correspondence of Mr. Monroe with the British Government ; and also Mr. Madison's correspondence with Mr. Rose on the same subject. --

March 23, 1808. Printed by order of the House of Representatives.

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting copies of a letter from the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the Secretary of State, with the answer of the latter.--

January 6, 1814. Ordered to lie on the table.

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting copies of a convention concluded at St. Petersburg, the 12th day of July, 1822, under the mediation of the Emperor of all the Russias, between the United States of America and His Britannic Majesty. --

United States. 18th Congress, 1st session, 1823-1824. House. Doc. no. 30.

Report on American Claimants Petition. -

Caption title.

Office of the City Clerk, St. Catharines Records, 1928-1974, n.d.

The site of present-day St. Catharines was settled by 3000 United Empire Loyalists at the end of the 18th century. From 1790, the settlement (then known as "The Twelve") grew as an agricultural community. St. Catharines was once referred to Shipman's Corners after Paul Shipman, owner of a tavern that was an important stagecoach transfer point. In 1815, leading businessman William Hamilton Merritt abandoned his wharf at Queenston and set up another at Shipman's Corners. He became involved in the construction and operation of several lumber and gristmills along Twelve Mile Creek. Shipman's Corners soon became the principal milling site of the eastern Niagara Peninsula. At about the same time, Merritt began to develop the salt springs that were discovered along the river which subsequently gave the village a reputation as a health resort. By this time St. Catharines was the official name of the village; the origin of the name remains obscure, but is thought to be named after Catharine Askin Robertson Hamilton, wife of the Hon. Robert Hamilton, a prominent businessman. Merritt devised a canal scheme from Lake Erie to Lake Ontario that would provide a more reliable water supply for the mills while at the same time function as a canal. He formed the Welland Canal Company, and construction took place from 1824 to 1829. The canal and the mills made St. Catharines the most important industrial centre in Niagara. By 1845, St. Catharines was incorporated as a town, with the town limits extending in 1854. Administrative and political functions were added to St. Catharines in 1862 when it became the county seat of Lincoln. In 1871, construction began on the third Welland Canal, which attracted additional population to the town. As a consequence of continual growth, the town limits were again extended. St. Catharines attained city status in 1876 with its larger population and area. Manufacturing became increasingly important in St. Catharines in the early 1900s with the abundance of hydro-electric power, and its location on important land and water routes. The large increase in population after the 1900s was mainly due to the continued industrialization and urbanization of the northern part of the city and the related expansion of business activity. The fourth Welland Canal was opened in 1932 as the third canal could no longer accommodate the larger ships. The post war years and the automobile brought great change to the urban form of St. Catharines. St. Catharines began to spread its boundaries in all directions with land being added five times during the 1950s. The Town of Merritton, Village of Port Dalhousie and Grantham Township were all incorporated as part of St. Catharines in 1961. In 1970 the Province of Ontario implemented a regional approach to deal with such issues as planning, pollution, transportation and services. As a result, Louth Township on the west side of the city was amalgamated, extending the city's boundary to Fifteen Mile Creek. With its current population of 131,989, St. Catharines has become the dominant centre of the Niagara region. Source: City of St. Catharines website http://www.stcatharines.ca/en/governin/HistoryOfTheCity.asp (January 27, 2011)

William Van Every fonds, 1784, 1804-1806, 1815-1816, 1828, 1832, n.d.

William Van Every, son of McGregory and Mary Wilcox (Jaycocks) Van Every, was born in New York state in 1765. During the Revolutionary War he joined Butler’s Rangers and served under Captain John McDonnell. He was granted three lots of land in the Township of Niagara, with additional lands granted at later dates. William married Elizabeth, daughter of George Young. Elizabeth was the widow of Col. Frederick Dochstader and mother of Catherine Dochstader, b. 1781. William Van Every died in 1832, his wife Elizabeth in 1851. Both are buried in the Warner Cemetery, in present day Niagara Falls. The children of William Van Every and Elizabeth Young were Mary, Elizabeth, Phoebe, John, Peter, William, Rebecca, Samuel and Joseph. Source: Mary Blackadar Piersol, The Records of the Van Every Family, Toronto : Best Printing, 1947. And, Patricia M. Orr, Historic Woodend, sponsored by Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 1980?