PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19721, 11 December 1926, Page 7

PRINCIPLES OF EQUALITY

EMPIRE FREEDOM CONFERENCE REPORT REFERENCES IN THE LORDS THE WRONG VIEWPOINT —Per Press Amo. —Cojyrirht. LONDON, Dec. 8. Tn the House of Lords, Lord Parmoor drew attention to the Imperial Conference and criticised the report upon 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 fredom in association also meant freedom in •eparaion. Lord Balfour, in replv. said Lord Pa rmoor seemed to have approached a difficult and complicated question from ♦ho wrong viewpoint. Ho 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 is now constituted, all difficulties must bo removed and all technicalitie’s settled. Could anything be more lawyerlike and less statesmanlike 1 Lord Balfour -what would happen if the Dominions wished to separate. What sort of motive should be given? They might as well consider all the causes of divorce before deciding the problems of matrimony.

Lord Balfour continued that that was the wrong way to work. The way io get rid of difficulties was for the Primo Ministers of all the Dominions to discuss the question in all aspects and agree on the broad principle that no control is exerciseablo by any one self-governing part of the Empire over another. Foreign critics were disposed to say that standing upon equality, the units of tho Empire were bound to separate. His view was the opposite; that tho British Empire was more united in organism than ever before. There could not be equality in function, however, for this must depend upon the circumstances of the moment. “But this docs not conflict with the fundamental equality of status, which is the only permanent bond between the selfgoverning portions.” Lord Parmoor. withdrawing hts motion, said he was quite in agreement with Lord Balfour.