Evening Post. THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1926. MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 25, 29 July 1926, Page 10

Evening Post. THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1926. MUTUAL OBLIGATIONS

The Empire is indebted to Lord Parmoor for having by his question about the Imperial Conference supplied Lord Bulfour with a text for an admirable little homily on the mutual obligations of the self-governing States of the Empire. The relations between tho Dominions and Britain are, in his opinion, those of equality, and this equality he considers to be "tho very essence of the British Empire." But as to the implications of that equality and the degrees of mutual responsibility Lord Balfour added that "there was little to bo gained by discussing and deciding." This surprising observation is calculated at the first glance to encourage those counsels of "taihoa" which have contributed so much to the futility of the Imperial Conference in regard to tho most fundamental of the problems of Empire. If little is to be gained by discussion and decision much may be lost by tho friction inseparable from a discussion which seeks to get things done, whether it succeeds or not, the inaction and the indecision of the Imperial Conference on the paramount issuos of forejgn policy and naval defe.nce would seem, to bo justified by this eminent authority. But unlike tho "ungracious pastors" of whom Ophelia said that they "reck not their own redo," moaning that their precept is better than their practice, this gracious counsellor of the Empire, after giving it what we take tho liberty of calling some \ rery bad advice, proceeds to violate it himself with highly satisfactory results. Lord .. Balfour's warning against the discussion of the implications of equality did not prevent his discussing the most essential of those implications in a" frank, stimulating,and unanswerable way.

Lord Balfour's interpretation of the equality between Britain and the Dominions, which he asserts aa positively as Mr. Mackenzie King or General Hertzog ever did, and a good deal more positively than Mr. Coatea would care to do, is that it is a complete and not a one-sided equality. It is an equality which, must apply to duties as well as to rights. To draw this inference too precisely might have givon offence to some of the Dominions, but there is no vestige of offence in what Lord Balfour says. The weight of his emphasis is upon the obligations of Britain, but incidentally and far from dogmatically he gives it as his personal opinion that the Dominions have obligations also. He was of opinion that as far as Britain was concerned she was bound to go to war to defend any part of the Empire which was endangered. Personally he thought the duties of other members of the Empire to us were not less than our duties to them. Our plain duty was to defend the Empire. He believed we would always carry out that duty. It is largely because the Dominions share Lord Balfour's confidence in Britain's faithful discharge of this duty that they are so careless of their own obligations in the matter. If Britain were less generous in the interpretation of her trust they could not afford to neglect theirs. But looking to her Navy for protection and finding i that she does not insist on their sharing the co"st, the Dominions are well content to let things slide. And it is noteworthy that those Dominion statesmen who are most insistent upon the e^ual status of tho Dominions are least disposed to recognise the obligations which their -claim implies. Tho. contrast between their theory and their practice amounts in effect to a claim for equal rights and unequal obligations, and it is" perfectly clear that no Empire and no-part-nership can last indefinitely on those terms or would deserve to do so. ■ New Zealand is of courso entirely out of sympathy with this grandiose and one-sided talk. Her Head was not turned by the new status 'conferred upon the Dominions by the Peace Conference and the League of Nations, and one reason for her failure to take tho responsibilities of League membership more seriously is the fear of the disintegrating effect of this status upon the Empire. The Empire has of- course the first call upon us, butthore is really no conflict between the two, and as a matter of fact we are not honouring either call as we should. No Dominion realises more clearly its immeasurable obligations to the British Navy than our own, and in our British blood, our isolation, and our weakness are throe sufficient' reasons. It should therefore be much easier for us than for any other Dominion to take a fair share in naval defence, yet the default which Mr. Massey had deplored for years is still serious and is only being gradually remedied. Mr. Coates would speak with greater weight on this great issue at tho Imperial Conference if the cure was already complete. On what has been commonly regarded as the moat urgent issue of all, the Prime Minister should havo been able to give the Conference a lead. With

the entire approval of the country, he made in November an emphatic declaration In favour of ratifying the Locarno Pact, but wo regret very much to infer from his answer to Mr. Eraser's question yesterday that he proposes to go to tho Conference with the Pact unratified. The first part of the answer was~ that an early opportunity would bo given of discussing the Pact, but the conclusion was as follows: —■ With reference to the question as to whether the Government had given consideration to the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee, Mr. Coates said the regrettable delay in the admission of Germany to the League of Nations and the consequent postponement of the operation of the Treaty had somewhat altered the position so far as tho Dominions were concerned, and it was not now intended to take any action until the matter had been fully discussed at the forthcoming Imperial Conference. This appears to moan that Parliament will not be asked to ratify the Locarno Treaty this session, but in the hope that wo arc mistaken wq refrain from comment on what on the face of it scorns to bo a deplorable decision.