IMPERIAL RELATIONS

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 65, 10 December 1926, Page 11

IMPERIAL RELATIONS

REPORT CRITICISED IN HOUSE OF LORDS EARL OF BALFOUR ON EQUALITY OF STATUS ‘THE ONLY PERMANENT BOND” In the House of Lords. Lord Parmoor criticised the report to the Imperial Conference on the relations between the units of tlie Empire, and asked whether freedom of association also meant freedom of separation. The Earl of Balfour said his view was that the British Empire was a more united organism than ever before. By Telegraph.— mess association copyright. (Rec. December 9. 7.15 p.m.) London, December 8. In the House of Lords, Lard Parmoor drew attention to the Imperial Conference and criticised the report upon the relations between the units of the British Empire. He questioned whether it was wise to lay down general principles of equality before essential differences had been disposed of by inquiry. He asked whether the freedom of association also meant freedom of separation. The Earl of Balfour, replying, said Lord Parmoor seemed to have, approached a difficult and complicated question from the wrong viewpoint. He could not imagine any policy from which he differed more profoundly than the suggestion that before laying down the general principles on which the Empire was now constituted all difficulties must be removed and all technicalities settled. Could anything be more lawyer-like and less statesmanlike? Lord Balfour asked what would happen if the Dominions wished to separate ? What sort of notice should be given ? They might as well consider all causes of divorce before deciding the problems of matrimony. Lord Balfour declared that that was the wrong way to work. The wav to get rid of difficulties was for the Prime Ministers of all the Dominions to discuss the question in all aspects and agree on the broad principle that no country was exercisable by any one self-governing part of the Empire over another. Foreign critics were disposed to sav that, standing upon equality, the units of the Empire were bound to separate. His view was the opposite, that the British Empire was a more united organism than ever before. There could not be equality in function, however, for this must depend upon the circumstances of the moment. “But this does not conflict with the fundamental equality of status, which is the only permanent bond between the self-governing portions.” Lord Parmoor, in withdrawing his motion, said he was unite in agreement with the Earl of Balfour. STATEMENT BY GENERAL SMUTS SOUTH AFRICAN PARTY’S ACTION JUSTIFIED SECESSION FINISHED WITH Cape Town, December 8. Addressing the Provincial Congress of the South African Party at Pretoria, General Smuts made his first reference to the status question, since the. repudiation by Mr. Tielman Roos. Minister of Justice, of secession. He said that the work of the South African Partv was now crowned with success, and he rejoiced at the Imperial Conference and General Hertzog’s wholehearted acceptance of it. which completely justified the South African Party’s action. He maintained, nevertheless, that there was :io material change in principle from the position defined by the Imperial Conference three years ago, when the light of treaty-making was (reelv conceded to the Dominions. What changes were made were of minor iinpcrtanee. He hoped now that they had finished with secession forever.